On 08/02/2013 04:00 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 2 August 2013 02:23, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> To remove that inconsistency make cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() execute >> cpufreq_cpu_put() for the given policy before returning, which >> decrements the driver module refcount so that it will be 0 after >> __cpufreq_add_dev() returns. Moreover, remove the cpufreq_cpu_get() >> call from cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(), since both the policy refcount >> and the driver module refcount are nonzero when it is called and they >> don't need to be bumped up by it. > > Sorry for creating so many problems but my concerns with this patch > aren't yet over :( > > Should we increment policy refcount or kobj refcount for every cpu it > is used on? I think yes, that's probably the right way of doing it. > It depends on how you look at it. The number of CPUs in the policy (cpumask_weight(policy)) itself serves as a refcount. We don't actually need yet another refcount to manage things. Besides, not bumping up the policy refcount for every CPU actually seems to simplify the code and make it easier to understand, so why not do it? :-) > And so we simply can't remove calls to cpufreq_cpu_get() from > cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() routine and also from > cpufreq_add_policy_cpu().. Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
