Re: [Update][PATCH] cpufreq: Do not hold driver module references foradditional policy CPUs

[Viresh Kumar]

On 2 August 2013 12:19, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 10:07 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> So, we can't rmmod the module as soon as it is inserted and so the
>> problem stays as is. :(
>>
>
> No, we get one step closer to the solution, since we fix the inconsistency
> between refcounts. Next step would be to get rid of refcounts and use
> locking like you suggested. Then we can rmmod it easily. I'm assuming
> Rafael has the same plan.

Not really. We are putting the reference at the end of add_dev() and
so refcount would be zero when we aren't running any critical sections.
And so, we can rmmod the module now and that problem is gone.

@Rafael: I will try to do generic cleanups in cpufreq in coming time
and will take care to remove .owner field completely in that. Until that
point your patches look fine:

For both of your patches:
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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/