[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160203132140.GE3469@vireshk>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 18:51:40 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.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,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq: governor: Create separate sysfs-ops
On 03-02-16, 13:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > +static ssize_t governor_show(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr,
> > + char *buf)
> > +{
> > + struct dbs_data *dbs_data = to_dbs_data(kobj);
> > + struct governor_attr *gattr = to_gov_attr(attr);
> > + int ret = -EIO;
> > +
> > + down_read(&dbs_data->rwsem);
> > +
> > + if (gattr->show)
> > + ret = gattr->show(dbs_data, buf);
> > +
> > + up_read(&dbs_data->rwsem);
>
> Do we need the lock here too?
>
> show() is only going to read the value, isn't it? And everything u32
> or smaller is read atomically anyway.
Okay, will drop it for now.
> Apart from this it looks good to me.
>
> When you're ready, please resend the whole series without patch [5/5]
> which is premature IMO.
I have changed that patch a bit, and am dropping just the lock now and
not governor_enable thing. That should be sane enough I believe.
Anyway I will be posting 7 patches now, pick only first 4 if you
aren't confident about the rest.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists