On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:20:55 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
I should have done that before, sorry about it.
Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and try to avoid introducing new issues this time?
Even i want to do that, but when i fetch your repo i don't see all applied patches in this branch.
The top-most commit in that branch is
commit 73bf0fc2b03d1f4fdada0ec430dc20bfb089cfd5 Author: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org Date: Tue Feb 5 22:21:14 2013 +0100
cpufreq: Don't remove sysfs link for policy->cpu
because that's when the locking problems were first reported and I stopped putting new commits into that branch. And since the locking problems were introduced by b8eed8a "cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()" I want them to be fixed on top of pm-cpufreq rather than on top of more new stuff that very well may introduce *more* problems.
So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
Moreover, I'd very much prefer it if you fixed the problems introduced by b8eed8a "cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()" separately and *then* any other locking problems you're seeing in the code, although people are not reporting them.
You seem to have a clear picture of how the code should work now, so that won't be a big trouble I guess.
Thanks, Rafael