Re: [PATCH 0/3] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.10-rc2

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Fri May 17 2013 - 19:32:05 EST

On Friday, May 17, 2013 07:22:05 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17 May 2013 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:13:37 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> On 17 May 2013 02:21, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > While I kind of understand why you want [3/3] to go into 3.10, I'm wondering
> >> > about the other two patches. Why exactly are they needed now?
> >>
> >> First one:
> >>
> >> cpufreq: Add EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL for have_governor_per_policy
> >>
> >> is required so that governors can be compiled as module. Otherwise they
> >> may break.. I haven't tried that but I believe that is the case.
> >
> > Did you try to build them as modules?
> That's what: "I haven't tried that but I believe that is the case."..
> Modules need variables to be exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> to be used by them.. And I thought this is pretty straight forward.

Well, I actually meant "can you please verify your belief?". :-)

And that's because I'm wondering why the zero-day build testing doesn't
catch this problem. Apparently, it doesn't build .configs with cpufreq
governors configured as modules, although I believe it does test
"make allmodconfig" for a couple of architectures at least. What gives?


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