On 19 March 2014 17:45, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 199b52b..e90388f 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -349,6 +349,38 @@ void cpufreq_notify_post_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_notify_post_transition);
>
>
> +void cpufreq_freq_transition_begin(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs, unsigned int state)
> +{
> +wait:
> + wait_event(&policy->transition_wait, !policy->transition_ongoing);
I think its broken here. At this point another thread can come take lock,
update transition_ongoing, send notification and finally unlock..
And after that we can take the lock and send another notification..
Correct?
> + if (!mutex_trylock(&policy->transition_lock))
> + goto wait;
> +
> + policy->transition_ongoing++;
s/++/ = true
> + cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&policy->transition_lock);
We can release the lock before sending notifications, its there just to
protect transition_ongoing.
--
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
