[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpomGi0FzL-3FwsP=zzmbNMNUc6CN0S9Lyba+vx8m7MS4uQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 15:06:41 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH] cpufreq: Do not hold driver module references for
additional policy CPUs
On 2 August 2013 12:19, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 10:07 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> So, we can't rmmod the module as soon as it is inserted and so the
>> problem stays as is. :(
>>
>
> No, we get one step closer to the solution, since we fix the inconsistency
> between refcounts. Next step would be to get rid of refcounts and use
> locking like you suggested. Then we can rmmod it easily. I'm assuming
> Rafael has the same plan.
Not really. We are putting the reference at the end of add_dev() and
so refcount would be zero when we aren't running any critical sections.
And so, we can rmmod the module now and that problem is gone.
@Rafael: I will try to do generic cleanups in cpufreq in coming time
and will take care to remove .owner field completely in that. Until that
point your patches look fine:
For both of your patches:
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
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