[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3472441.hhXSbXj7X9@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:47:35 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
Steve Bannister <Steve.Bannister@....com>,
Arvind Chauhan <arvind.chauhan@....com>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Charles Garcia-Tobin <charles.garcia-tobin@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: stats: do cpufreq_cpu_put() corresponding to cpufreq_cpu_get
On Friday, March 22, 2013 04:47:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22 March 2013 16:42, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >> In cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs() we aren't balancing calls to cpufreq_cpu_get()
> >> with cpufreq_cpu_put(). This will never let us have ref count to policy->kobj as
> >> zero.
> >
> > Rafael,
> >
> > Since this prevents booting on our hardware (we unregister and
> > re-register the cpufreq driver to account for virtual cores), will
> > this be considered as a hotfix for 3.9?
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> >
> > Acked-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
>
> Sorry i forgot to mention, this should be pushed for next rc.
Well, -rc5 is a realistic target.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists