From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932561Ab3DBO7O (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 2 Apr 2013 10:59:14 -0400
Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]:63359 "EHLO
	mail-ob0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932465Ab3DBO7N (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 2 Apr 2013 10:59:13 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20130402145536.GA31757@gulag1.americas.sgi.com>
References: <5159C147.70800@sgi.com>
	<1364847069-2887-1-git-send-email-nzimmer@sgi.com>
	<1364847069-2887-2-git-send-email-nzimmer@sgi.com>
	<CAKohpok7MR28trAddHRi5Lcg0bGBHBnOfJO=yu7SQqGnV5ZCRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130402145536.GA31757@gulag1.americas.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:29:12 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKohpokXbeRp-pHaJRAOjnF+R+wy8R9We67Yr2C2nyoVXyJd6w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] cpufreq: split the cpufreq_driver_lock and use the rcu
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com>
Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 2 April 2013 20:25, Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com> wrote:
> The lock is unneeded if we expect register and unregister driver to not be
> called from muliple threads at once.  I didn't make that assumption.

Hmm.. But doesn't rcu part take care of that too?? Two writers
updating stuff simultaneously?