Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: stats: do cpufreq_cpu_put() corresponding to cpufreq_cpu_get

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Fri Mar 22 2013 - 09:15:26 EST

On Friday, March 22, 2013 05:40:25 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22 March 2013 17:42, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Which would be useful to write in the changelog, wouldn't it?
> Hmm..
> copy-paste with gmail is also broken, so find it attached too.
> New change log, no change in patch and you can trust me on that :)

OK, applied to bleeding-edge.


> ----------x-------------x--------
> From 034e5ac4cccd09872592a46decd38d5f24047f10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> Message-Id: <034e5ac4cccd09872592a46decd38d5f24047f10.1363954124.git.viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:15:48 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: stats: do cpufreq_cpu_put() corresponding to
> cpufreq_cpu_get
> In cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs() we aren't balancing calls to cpufreq_cpu_get()
> with cpufreq_cpu_put(). This will never let us have ref count to policy->kobj as
> zero.
> We will get a hang if somehow cpufreq_driver_unregister() is called. And that
> can happen when we compile our driver as module and insmod/rmmod it.
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
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