From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: Kernel warning in cpufreq_add_dev() Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 03:26 +0200 Message-ID: <1496109.Jd9MGDryNS@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <20160819110032.GM1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <2310664.2BksGViL4r@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160824131316.GI25143@ubuntu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:57434 "HELO cloudserver094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757337AbcHaBUM (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:20:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160824131316.GI25143@ubuntu> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 06:43:16 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22-08-16, 19:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > But it will be called in that path during physical CPU hot-add, won't it? > > What about something like this instead (completely untested) ? Inline, please? > @Russell: Can you please try this ?? I was thinking about something similar, but won't the WARN_ON()s in cpufreq_add/remove_dev_symlink() still trigger, say if there's more than one CPU in a policy and both happen to be online initially? Thanks, Rafael From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rjw@rjwysocki.net (Rafael J. Wysocki) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 03:26 +0200 Subject: Kernel warning in cpufreq_add_dev() In-Reply-To: <20160824131316.GI25143@ubuntu> References: <20160819110032.GM1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <2310664.2BksGViL4r@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160824131316.GI25143@ubuntu> Message-ID: <1496109.Jd9MGDryNS@vostro.rjw.lan> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 06:43:16 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22-08-16, 19:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > But it will be called in that path during physical CPU hot-add, won't it? > > What about something like this instead (completely untested) ? Inline, please? > @Russell: Can you please try this ?? I was thinking about something similar, but won't the WARN_ON()s in cpufreq_add/remove_dev_symlink() still trigger, say if there's more than one CPU in a policy and both happen to be online initially? Thanks, Rafael