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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:49:21 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1 On 19 September 2013 23:41, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > But there was no code to set the per-cpu values to -1 to begin with. Since > the per-cpu variable was defined as static, it would have been initialized > to zero. Thus, we would never actually hit the BUG_ON() condition, since > policy_cpu didn't turn out to be -1. Really!! Or I have turned blind (and there is very strong chance of that, considering the amount of silly mistakes I do :) )... I picked it up from 474deff7 only: @@ -2148,10 +2125,8 @@ static int __init cpufreq_core_init(void) if (cpufreq_disabled()) return -ENODEV; - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { - per_cpu(cpufreq_policy_cpu, cpu) = -1; + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) init_rwsem(&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)); - } cpufreq_global_kobject = kobject_create(); BUG_ON(!cpufreq_global_kobject); -- 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