On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
Commit 955ef4833574 ("cpufreq: Drop rwsem lock around CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT") dropped these because of some ABBA lockup issues.
The previous commit has fixed them all and we don't need to drop these locks anymore.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
First of all, this is effectively reverting commit 955ef4833574, so the subject should be "Revert commit 955ef4833574 (cpufreq: Drop rwsem lock around CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT)".
There should be a Fixes: tag pointing to commit 955ef4833574 and a Reported-by: for Juri.
If there is a link to a bug report related to this, it should be pointed to by a Link: tag.
The changelog should say why the original commit was there and why the way it attempted to solve the problem was incorrect. It also should say that the original problem was addressed by a previous commit, so this one can be reverted without consequences.
But I'm not going to write that changelog. I actually am not going to write any changelogs for you any more, because I'm seriously tired of doing that. Moreover, if I see a patch from you with a changelog that's not acceptable to me, it will immediately go to the "not applicable" trash bin no matter what the changes below look like. You *have* *to* write useful changelogs. This isn't optional or best effort. This is mandatory and important.
Now, I'm not really sure if the ordering of this patchset is right. Maybe we should just revert upfront with the "we'll address the original problem in the following commits" statement in the changelog and fix it in a different way? It looks like patches [1-3/5] fix a problem that isn't there even, but would appear after the [4/5] if they were not applied previously, which doesn't sound really straightforward to me.
Thanks, Rafael