From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760122Ab3BHM0X (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:26:23 -0500 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:34204 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758100Ab3BHM0W (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:26:22 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Viresh Kumar Cc: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu, artem.savkov@gmail.com, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, robin.randhawa@arm.com, Steve.Bannister@arm.com, Liviu.Dudau@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.9 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:32:39 +0100 Message-ID: <2130803.VQA31hf2jE@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.8.0-rc6; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <2896238.eRV3G7kyl2@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:20:55 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > I should have done that before, sorry about it. > > > > Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and > > try to avoid introducing new issues this time? > > Even i want to do that, but when i fetch your repo i don't see all applied > patches in this branch. The top-most commit in that branch is commit 73bf0fc2b03d1f4fdada0ec430dc20bfb089cfd5 Author: Viresh Kumar Date: Tue Feb 5 22:21:14 2013 +0100 cpufreq: Don't remove sysfs link for policy->cpu because that's when the locking problems were first reported and I stopped putting new commits into that branch. And since the locking problems were introduced by b8eed8a "cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()" I want them to be fixed on top of pm-cpufreq rather than on top of more new stuff that very well may introduce *more* problems. So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq. Moreover, I'd very much prefer it if you fixed the problems introduced by b8eed8a "cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()" separately and *then* any other locking problems you're seeing in the code, although people are not reporting them. You seem to have a clear picture of how the code should work now, so that won't be a big trouble I guess. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.