[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFgnuDeeU5qALyqN4Akpi5SoHRXPWaq_PLYSSmjxkq9V5N=qag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:40:16 +0800
From: Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg.marvell@...il.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg@...vell.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
njiang1@...vell.com, zjwu@...vell.com, ylmao@...vell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpufreq: fix governor start/stop race condition
2013/6/12 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>:
> On 12 June 2013 14:39, Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg@...vell.com> wrote:
>
>> ret = policy->governor->governor(policy, event);
>
> We again reached to the same problem. We shouldn't call
> this between taking locks, otherwise recursive locks problems
> would be seen again.
But this is not the same lock as the deadlock case, it is a new lock,
and only used in this function. no other functions use this lock.
I don't know how can we get dead lock again?
Thanks
Xiaoguang
--
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