4.16-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
[ Upstream commit b24b6478e65f140610ab1ffaadc7bc6bf0be8aad ]
Ideally the de-allocation of resources should happen in the exact opposite order in which they were allocated. It helps maintain the code in long term, even if nothing really breaks with incorrect ordering.
That wasn't followed in cpufreq_online() and it has some inconsistencies. For example, the symlinks were created from within the locked region while they are removed only after putting the locks. Also ->exit() should have been called only after the symlinks are removed and the lock is dropped, as that was the case when ->init() was first called.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org [ rjw: Subject ] Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin alexander.levin@microsoft.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1327,14 +1327,14 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int c return 0;
out_exit_policy: + for_each_cpu(j, policy->real_cpus) + remove_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, get_cpu_device(j)); + up_write(&policy->rwsem);
if (cpufreq_driver->exit) cpufreq_driver->exit(policy);
- for_each_cpu(j, policy->real_cpus) - remove_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, get_cpu_device(j)); - out_free_policy: cpufreq_policy_free(policy); return ret;