[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 13:38:32 -0800
From: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/19] cpufreq: assert policy->rwsem is held in __cpufreq_governor
On 02/01/2016 10:36 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 01-02-16, 22:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "the sysfs lock" here? The policy rwsem
>> or something else?
>
> He perhaps referred to the s_active.lock that we see in traces.
>
Yeah, that's what I mean. I generally don't use the exact name of the
lock in emails (lazy to look it up) if there isn't a lot of chance for
mistaking it for another lock.
-Saravana
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists