* venkatesh.pallipadi@xxxxxxxxx <venkatesh.pallipadi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Since recent chanegs to ondemand and conservative governor, there > have been multiple reports of lockdep issues in cpufreq. Patch > series takes care of these problems. > > This is the next attempt following the one here, which was not a > complete fix. > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.3/01073.html > > I am currently running some stress tests to make sure there are no > issues with these patches. But, wanted to send them out for > review/comments/testing before I head out for the long weekend. > > If this patchset seems sane, the first patch in the patchset > should also get into 30.stable. Btw., FYI, because my test-systems were frequently triggering those bugs, i kept testing the following series from you and Mathieu in -tip: ecf8b04: cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its usage conservative gov b08c597: cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its usage 0807e30: cpufreq: remove rwsem lock from CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP call (second call site) So that fix-series, while probably not complete (given that you sent a v2 series), worked well in practice and gets my: Tested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> Is the delta between this (tested) series and your v2 version significant? If not it might make sense to shape it as a delta patch to the v1 series, if that looks clean enough - to preserve testing results. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
