[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160205065341.GE21792@vireshk>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:23:41 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/10] cpufreq: governor: Use common mutex for dbs_data
protection
On 05-02-16, 03:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> Every governor relying on the common code in cpufreq_governor.c
> has to provide its own mutex in struct common_dbs_data. However,
> there actually is no need to have a separate mutex per governor
> for this purpose, they may be using the same global mutex just
> fine. Accordingly, introduce a single common mutex for that and
> drop the mutex field from struct common_dbs_data.
>
> That at least will ensure that the mutex is always present and
> initialized regardless of what the particular governors do.
>
> Another benefit is that the common code does not need a pointer to
> a governor-related structure to get to the mutex which sometimes
> helps.
>
> Finally, it makes the code generally easier to follow.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> Acked-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists