[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111024113056.GA2635@zhy>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:30:56 +0800
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH -rt 5/5] cpufreq: get rid of
get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus()
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:24:51AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Yong Zhang wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:12:20AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Sun, 16 Oct 2011, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fix below false positive (seems this is not a real deadlock scenario)
> > > > lockdep warning:
> > >
> > > This looks like you caused it with patch 1.
> >
> > Hmmm, yup.
> > CPU_DOWN_PREPARE will be under cpu_hotplug.lock.
> >
> > > Both need a bit more
> > > thought, but thanks for catching that.
> >
> > No sure whether it's big issue or not.
> > Mind showing more about your concern?
>
> This is probably not the only place which will run into that issue and
> I have not much interest to patch all those sites.
If so, I think that kind of violation has been caught in mainline,
because mainline has had CPU_DOWN_PREPARE called under
cpu_hotplug.lock, right?
Or am I missing something?
Thanks,
Yong
--
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