Re: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 09/20/2013 09:49 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19 September 2013 23:41, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> But there was no code to set the per-cpu values to -1 to begin with. Since
>> the per-cpu variable was defined as static, it would have been initialized
>> to zero. Thus, we would never actually hit the BUG_ON() condition, since
>> policy_cpu didn't turn out to be -1.
> 
> Really!! Or I have turned blind (and there is very strong chance of that,
> considering the amount of silly mistakes I do :) )...
> 
> I picked it up from 474deff7 only:
> 
> @@ -2148,10 +2125,8 @@ static int __init cpufreq_core_init(void)
>         if (cpufreq_disabled())
>                 return -ENODEV;
> 
> -       for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> -               per_cpu(cpufreq_policy_cpu, cpu) = -1;
> +       for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
>                 init_rwsem(&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu));
> -       }
> 
>         cpufreq_global_kobject = kobject_create();
>         BUG_ON(!cpufreq_global_kobject);
> 


Heh, looks like it was me who was blind then :-/

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/