| Message ID | 51159391.2020002@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Friday, February 08, 2013 04:08:49 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>> On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > >>>> So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq. > >>> > >>> I already did. Please check for-rafael branch > >> > >> Cool. This is the one I'm supposed to apply, then? > > > > OK, applied to bleeding-edge. Hopefully it will be build-tested over the > > weekend and I can move it to linux-next. > > > > I dropped the rwlock/RCU patches from Nathan, though, because I had some > > doubts about the correctness of the RCU one and the rwlock one alone would > > conflict with your further changes. > > One piece of fallout from dropping Nathan patches I had rebased mine on top of > them. > > This fixes the breakage do you want me to spin my patches or send this separately?: No need to, I'll try to fix that in my tree. > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 0ebdf8c..a008b8e 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1024,7 +1024,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct > __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP); > > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > - if (!driver->setpolicy) > + if (!cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) > strncpy(per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_governor, cpu), > data->governor->name, CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN); > #endif > @@ -1771,7 +1771,7 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu) > pr_debug("Driver did not initialize current freq"); > data->cur = policy.cur; > } else { > - if (data->cur != policy.cur && driver->target) > + if (data->cur != policy.cur && cpufreq_driver->target) > cpufreq_out_of_sync(cpu, data->cur, > policy.cur); > } > Thanks, Rafael
On 9 February 2013 05:38, Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >>>> >>>> On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of >>>>> linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq. >>>> >>>> >>>> I already did. Please check for-rafael branch >>> >>> >>> Cool. This is the one I'm supposed to apply, then? >> >> >> OK, applied to bleeding-edge. Hopefully it will be build-tested over the >> weekend and I can move it to linux-next. >> >> I dropped the rwlock/RCU patches from Nathan, though, because I had some >> doubts about the correctness of the RCU one and the rwlock one alone would >> conflict with your further changes. As soon as i read Rafael's mail, i realized Dirk's patch might be broken and immediately i saw your mail :) @Rafael: Sorry for not reviewing Nathan's patch well. I didn't knew much about RCU then. I am going through its lwn articles now ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Saturday, February 09, 2013 07:40:26 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 9 February 2013 05:38, Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > >> On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> > >>> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of > >>>>> linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I already did. Please check for-rafael branch > >>> > >>> > >>> Cool. This is the one I'm supposed to apply, then? > >> > >> > >> OK, applied to bleeding-edge. Hopefully it will be build-tested over the > >> weekend and I can move it to linux-next. > >> > >> I dropped the rwlock/RCU patches from Nathan, though, because I had some > >> doubts about the correctness of the RCU one and the rwlock one alone would > >> conflict with your further changes. > > As soon as i read Rafael's mail, i realized Dirk's patch might be broken > and immediately i saw your mail :) > > @Rafael: Sorry for not reviewing Nathan's patch well. I didn't knew much about > RCU then. I am going through its lwn articles now ;) No biggie, I overlooked that myself first time. Thanks, Rafael
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 0ebdf8c..a008b8e 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1024,7 +1024,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP); #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU - if (!driver->setpolicy) + if (!cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) strncpy(per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_governor, cpu), data->governor->name, CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN); #endif @@ -1771,7 +1771,7 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu) pr_debug("Driver did not initialize current freq"); data->cur = policy.cur; } else { - if (data->cur != policy.cur && driver->target) + if (data->cur != policy.cur && cpufreq_driver->target) cpufreq_out_of_sync(cpu, data->cur, policy.cur); }