linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: return EEXIST instead of EBUSY for second registering

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: <CAE9FiQWm=Db4e8nYdVJzpirmV2EfKxEYYRHo6ggTtX0CY3-hhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:12:31 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: return EEXIST instead of EBUSY for second registering

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:30:04 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>> > On 20 September 2013 07:01, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>> >> Sorry,  looks like this one is not enough.
>
> Well, I've already applied this one and it makes sense to me anyway.

you can keep that.

>
>> >> please let me know if you prefer me send addon patch
>> >> or revised one.
>> >
>> > Atleast you can let us know what the problem is? And then we
>> > can decide on that.. But anyway, you can send a new patch
>> > based over latest linux-next (which will have your original patch),
>> > and then leave it onto Rafael to merge it or have two patches..
>> > (though I am quite sure he will not drop anything now, unless its
>> > too screwed.., at worst he might revert it..)..
>>
>> looks like the crash is intermittent..., so i thought that patch fixed
>> the problem.
>> but later I found other suspicious print out.
>
> So, does it mean that the $subject patch fixes the issue for you to some
> extent, but more changes are necessary to make it go away completely?

yes.

>
>> please check new one:
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2915181/
>
> I see.
>
> I *think* we can just drop the module requesting stuff entirely, because it
> doesn't seem to work anyway and udev is handling this for us.

looks some nehalem/westmere based system may need it when they have
several SSDTs. will double check that.

Thanks

Yinghai
--
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/