[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpokQO82XMGwcTjVmNTbBVESyFqV4DAxMMU_RHEtN+LqUgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:09:15 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"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 20 September 2013 14:03, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> I suspect this hunk from the patch may be the cause:
>
> + if (cpufreq_driver) {
> + /* get the CPU */
> + policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu);
> + if (policy)
> + kobject_get(&policy->kobj);
> + }
>
> - /* get the CPU */
> - policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu);
>
> As you see we *always* set a policy pointer before this patch,
> but after this patch we only do it if we have a cpufreq driver
> registered!
Not really!! See this few lines above:
- if (!cpufreq_driver)
- goto err_out_unlock;
-
--
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