[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080208193927.GA25989@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:39:27 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Balaji Rao <balajirrao@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] kobject handling in cpufreq
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 12:52:40AM +0530, Balaji Rao wrote:
> Hi greg,
>
> I encountered a regression in linux-2.6.git which prevented the system from shutting down. I found that it
> was 'waiting_for_completion' on kobj_unregister.The same thing happened when I tried to take CPUs offline.
>
> git-bisect pointed me to this commit :
>
> commit c10997f6575f476ff38442fa18fd4a0d80345f9d
> Author: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
> Date: Thu Dec 20 08:13:05 2007 -0800
>
> Kobject: convert drivers/* from kobject_unregister() to kobject_put()
>
> In the file drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c, you have not replaced one occurrence of kobject_unregister with kobject_put.
> Apparently its because of the kobject_put in the subsequent line.
>
> @@ -1030,8 +1030,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev (struct sys_device * sys_dev)
>
> unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
>
> - kobject_unregister(&data->kobj);
> -
> kobject_put(&data->kobj);
>
> /* we need to make sure that the underlying kobj is actually
>
> Now, this can be fixed by adding another kobject_put. But having two kobject_puts in consequent lines tells us that there
> should be two references to the kobject at that point. So, I believe that it is safe to remove the kobject_get
> corresponding to the existing kobject_put to fix this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Balaji Rao <balajirrao@...il.com>
This looks correct to me, nice catch.
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists