[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpokbd=xX-DqVeEZOnGftZuE-54RDShpMJgFPskRc3CkZ5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 16:00:47 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
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 02:23, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> To remove that inconsistency make cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() execute
> cpufreq_cpu_put() for the given policy before returning, which
> decrements the driver module refcount so that it will be 0 after
> __cpufreq_add_dev() returns. Moreover, remove the cpufreq_cpu_get()
> call from cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(), since both the policy refcount
> and the driver module refcount are nonzero when it is called and they
> don't need to be bumped up by it.
Sorry for creating so many problems but my concerns with this patch
aren't yet over :(
Should we increment policy refcount or kobj refcount for every cpu it
is used on? I think yes, that's probably the right way of doing it.
And so we simply can't remove calls to cpufreq_cpu_get() from
cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() routine and also from
cpufreq_add_policy_cpu()..
--
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