On 18 September 2013 12:39, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/17/2013 09:20 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > The code looks good, but the patch doesn't apply properly, because of the code > change that went in in your patch "cpufreq: Clear policy->cpus bits in > __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish()". Hmm.. Because of the number of patches floating now a days, it is getting more and more complex.. I will sort things out once Rafael starts picking stuff for 3.13.. >> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h >> + /* >> + * The rules for this semaphore: >> + * - Any routine that wants to read from the policy structure will >> + * do a down_read on this semaphore. >> + * - Any routine that will write to the policy structure and/or may take away >> + * the policy altogether (eg. CPU hotplug), will hold this lock in write >> + * mode before doing so. >> + * >> + * Additional rules: >> + * - Governor routines that can be called in cpufreq hotplug path should not >> + * take this sem as top level hotplug notifier handler takes this. > > I think this comment is obsolete. I don't see the top-level hotplug notifier handler > (cpufreq_cpu_callback) acquiring the rwsem. Good to fix this comment while we are > at it, perhaps in a separate patch. (The comment above __cpufreq_remove_dev about > the policy-rwsem appears to be similarly out of date). Yeah.. Will get that done, but will send these again only once Rafael is picking stuff for 3.13.. -- 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
