Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.9

[Viresh Kumar]

On 8 February 2013 04:37, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 07, 2013 06:52:20 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 7 February 2013 18:35, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I think they all make sense, so applied to linux-next.
>> >
>> > I would prefer not to make any more changes to cpufreq before v3.9 from now on,
>> > except for fixes and maybe the Drik's patchset that I kind of scheduled for
>>
>> Dirk :)
>
> Yes, sorry Dirk.
>
>> > merging into bleeding-edge later today.
>>
>> I probably have few more for you. Some sparse warnings to be fixed for
>> Dirks work and an dangling exynos patch which is waiting for your reply :)
>
> Which Exynos patch?

https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/30/592

> BTW, there still are locking problems in linux-next.  Why do we need
> to take cpufreq_driver_lock() around driver->init() in cpufreq_add_dev(),
> in particular?

I thought cpufreq provides atomicity to all drivers callbacks and that's why
i had those around it :(
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/