On 09/11/2013 06:08 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 11 September 2013 08:58, Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:From 668e1b6fd94b5c0e56a651b4c60cbbc7a6868b46 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:31:15 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Cpufreq/governor: Remove fossil comment cpufreq_set_policy() has been changed to origin __cpufreq_set_policy() and policy->lock has been converted to rewrite lock by commit 5a01f2. So remove it. Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c | 11 ----------- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c index 0307809..4dbf1db 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c @@ -38,18 +38,7 @@ static int cpufreq_set(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int freq) if (!per_cpu(cpu_is_managed, policy->cpu)) goto err; - /* - * We're safe from concurrent calls to ->target() here - * as we hold the userspace_mutex lock. If we were calling - * cpufreq_driver_target, a deadlock situation might occur: - * A: cpufreq_set (lock userspace_mutex) -> - * cpufreq_driver_target(lock policy->lock) - * B: cpufreq_set_policy(lock policy->lock) -> - * __cpufreq_governor -> - * cpufreq_governor_userspace (lock userspace_mutex) - */ ret = __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, freq, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L); - err: mutex_unlock(&userspace_mutex); return ret;Looks fine: Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks. I will send formal version. -- 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
