linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.9

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2130803.VQA31hf2jE@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:32:39 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	valdis.kletnieks@...edu, artem.savkov@...il.com,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
	robin.randhawa@....com, Steve.Bannister@....com,
	Liviu.Dudau@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.9

On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:20:55 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > I should have done that before, sorry about it.
> >
> > Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and
> > try to avoid introducing new issues this time?
> 
> Even i want to do that, but when i fetch your repo i don't see all applied
> patches in this branch.

The top-most commit in that branch is

commit 73bf0fc2b03d1f4fdada0ec430dc20bfb089cfd5
Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Date:   Tue Feb 5 22:21:14 2013 +0100

    cpufreq: Don't remove sysfs link for policy->cpu

because that's when the locking problems were first reported and I stopped
putting new commits into that branch.  And since the locking problems were
introduced by b8eed8a "cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()" I want them
to be fixed on top of pm-cpufreq rather than on top of more new stuff that
very well may introduce *more* problems.

So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.

Moreover, I'd very much prefer it if you fixed the problems introduced by
b8eed8a "cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()" separately and *then* any
other locking problems you're seeing in the code, although people are not
reporting them.

You seem to have a clear picture of how the code should work now, so that
won't be a big trouble I guess.

Thanks,
Rafael

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/