Back finally and I see lots of mails over cpufreq stuff.. :) On 3 September 2013 18:50, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This doesn't solve the problem completely: it prevents the store_*() task > from continuing *only* when it concurrently executes the __cpufreq_governor() > function along with the CPU offline task. But if the two calls don't overlap, > we will still have the possibility where the store_*() task tries to acquire > the timer mutex after the CPU offline task has just finished destroying it. How exactly? My brain is still on vacations :) Anyway, this was one of the problem that I tried to solve with my patch. But there can be other race conditions where things can go wrong and so that patch may still be useful. Call to __cpufreq_governor() must be serialized I believe. -- 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
