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

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Fri Feb 08 2013 - 07:26:26 EST

On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:20:55 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I should have done that before, sorry about it.
> >
> > Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and
> > try to avoid introducing new issues this time?
> Even i want to do that, but when i fetch your repo i don't see all applied
> patches in this branch.

The top-most commit in that branch is

commit 73bf0fc2b03d1f4fdada0ec430dc20bfb089cfd5
Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Feb 5 22:21:14 2013 +0100

cpufreq: Don't remove sysfs link for policy->cpu

because that's when the locking problems were first reported and I stopped
putting new commits into that branch. And since the locking problems were
introduced by b8eed8a "cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()" I want them
to be fixed on top of pm-cpufreq rather than on top of more new stuff that
very well may introduce *more* problems.

So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.

Moreover, I'd very much prefer it if you fixed the problems introduced by
b8eed8a "cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()" separately and *then* any
other locking problems you're seeing in the code, although people are not
reporting them.

You seem to have a clear picture of how the code should work now, so that
won't be a big trouble I guess.


I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at