Re: [Update][PATCH] cpufreq: Do not hold driver module referencesfor additional policy CPUs

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 08/02/2013 03:06 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 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.
> 

Ah, yes, you are right.

> @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>
> 
 
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/