On Tuesday, May 24, 2011, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 19:05, Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 06:12:15PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> >> cpufreq table allocated by opp_init_cpufreq_table is better
> >> freed by OPP layer itself. This allows future modifications to
> >> the table handling to be transparent to the users.
> > ...
> >> +void opp_free_cpufreq_table(struct device *dev,
> >> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table **table)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!table)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + /* Pretend as if I am an updater */
> >> + mutex_lock(&dev_opp_list_lock);
> >> + kfree(*table);
> >> + *table = NULL;
> >> + mutex_unlock(&dev_opp_list_lock);
> >> +}
> >
> > Not clear what the mutex protects here. Currently it protects only
> > device opp list modifications. opp_init_cpufreq_table holds the lock only
> > while looking up and walking the device opp list; the cpufreq table it
> > creates is not complete by the time the lock is dropped.
>
> hmm.. right.. mutex protection does'nt really make sense here..
Care to post an updated patch?
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
