From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934633AbcALLYQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2016 06:24:16 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:33574 "EHLO mail-pf0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933917AbcALLYO (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2016 06:24:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:54:09 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Juri Lelli Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, mturquette@baylibre.com, steve.muckle@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 18/19] cpufreq: remove transition_lock Message-ID: <20160112112409.GJ1084@ubuntu> References: <1452533760-13787-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com> <1452533760-13787-19-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1452533760-13787-19-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11-01-16, 17:35, Juri Lelli wrote: > From: Michael Turquette > > transition_lock was introduced to serialize cpufreq transition > notifiers. Instead of using a different lock for protecting concurrent > modifications of policy, it is better to require that callers of > transition notifiers implement appropriate locking (this is already the > case AFAICS). Removing transition_lock also simplifies current locking > scheme. So, are you saying that the reasoning mentioned in this patch are all wrong? commit 12478cf0c55e ("cpufreq: Make sure frequency transitions are serialized") -- viresh