On 13 September 2013 21:23, Russell King - ARM Linux linux@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:32:07PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
read_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);notify = !(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION);read_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);I don't think this needs to be read under a lock - if this bit changes dynamically, then there's something very wrong.
No it doesn't change dynamically.. Was a mistake.. Following change folded into the original commit (attached)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 2c1ae708..bb7402d 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1802,7 +1802,6 @@ int __cpufreq_driver_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, else if (cpufreq_driver->target_index) { struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table; struct cpufreq_freqs freqs; - unsigned long flags; bool notify; int index;
@@ -1824,9 +1823,7 @@ int __cpufreq_driver_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, goto out; }
- read_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags); notify = !(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION); - read_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
if (notify) { freqs.old = policy->cur;