[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <8c3d50faf8811e86136fb3f9c459e43fc3c50bc0.1653565641.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 17:21:20 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: Panic if policy is active in cpufreq_policy_free()
With the new design in place, show/store callbacks check if the policy
is active or not before proceeding further and cpufreq_policy_free()
must be called after emptying policy->cpus mask, i.e. inactive policy.
Lets make sure we don't get a bug around this later and catch this early
by putting a BUG_ON() within cpufreq_policy_free().
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index e24aa5d4bca5..53d163a84e06 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1284,6 +1284,12 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
unsigned long flags;
int cpu;
+ /*
+ * The callers must ensure the policy is inactive by now, to avoid any
+ * races with show()/store() callbacks.
+ */
+ BUG_ON(!policy_is_inactive(policy));
+
/* Remove policy from list */
write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
list_del(&policy->policy_list);
--
2.31.1.272.g89b43f80a514
Powered by blists - more mailing lists