On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
On 12 November 2016 at 03:28, Rafael J. Wysocki rafael@kernel.org wrote:
@@ -478,8 +484,6 @@ static void sugov_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) struct sugov_tunables *tunables = sg_policy->tunables; unsigned int count;
cpufreq_disable_fast_switch(policy);->but why is this change necessary?
sugov_stop() has been called already, so the ordering here shouldn't matter.
Because sugov_policy_free() would be using the flag fast_switch_enabled.
That's only going to happen in the next patch, though, right? It wouldn't hurt to write that in the changelog too.
Besides, I'm not actually sure if starting/stopping the kthread in sugov_policy_alloc/free() is a good idea. It sort of conflates the allocation of memory with kthread creation. Any chance to untangle that?
Thanks, Rafael