[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpongsNtEVbHL=w1fbw5tEXK=WaMcp1N03ar9Sx_CU=1O-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:05:14 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@....edu>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...gle.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] cpufreq: Don't destroy/realloc policy/sysfs on hotplug/suspend
On 17 July 2014 01:26, Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 07/16/2014 04:16 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> That is, we wanted
>> to do the kobject cleanup after releasing the hotplug lock, and POST_DEAD
>> stage was well-suited for that.
I think, this has changed in Saravana's patch, we do it in the PREPARE stage
now.
>> Commit 1aee40ac9c8 (cpufreq: Invoke __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish() after
>> releasing cpu_hotplug.lock) explains this in detail. Saravana, please take
>> a
>> look at that reasoning and ensure that your patch doesn't re-introduce
>> those
>> deadlock possibilities!
>
>
> But all of that was needed _because_ we were creating and destroying
> policies and kobjs all the time. We don't do that anymore. So, I don't think
> any of that applies. We only destroy when the cpufreq driver is
> unregistered. That's kinda of the point of this patchset.
>
> Thoughts?
See above.
--
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