![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:17:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > It _looks_ like we're leaking a refcount on that lock, but I don't > > > see where. It's a shame you can't reproduce this easily, as > > > cpufreq.debug=7 would give us more clues. (And > > > CONFIG_CPUFREQ_DEBUG=y) > > > > So we're missing some unlocks in some error paths. It's feasible you > > hit one of those. This patch should be the fix for that. > > since it's not really reproducible (i failed to get it since then), how > about you push your fix upstream (it's an obviously correct fix), we > consider this regression fixed and i'll re-notify you if there's still > any problem left. It's not like there's any escape from make randconfig > bootup test coverage in the long run ;-) Yeah, will push it to Linus today. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-12-13 18:57 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||