lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Remove fossil comment of cpufreq_set_policy
From
On 11 September 2013 08:58, Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> wrote:
> From 668e1b6fd94b5c0e56a651b4c60cbbc7a6868b46 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:31:15 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] Cpufreq/governor: Remove fossil comment
>
> cpufreq_set_policy() has been changed to origin __cpufreq_set_policy()
> and policy->lock has been converted to rewrite lock by commit 5a01f2.
> So remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c | 11 -----------
> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c
> b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c
> index 0307809..4dbf1db 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c
> @@ -38,18 +38,7 @@ static int cpufreq_set(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> unsigned int freq)
> if (!per_cpu(cpu_is_managed, policy->cpu))
> goto err;
>
> - /*
> - * We're safe from concurrent calls to ->target() here
> - * as we hold the userspace_mutex lock. If we were calling
> - * cpufreq_driver_target, a deadlock situation might occur:
> - * A: cpufreq_set (lock userspace_mutex) ->
> - * cpufreq_driver_target(lock policy->lock)
> - * B: cpufreq_set_policy(lock policy->lock) ->
> - * __cpufreq_governor ->
> - * cpufreq_governor_userspace (lock userspace_mutex)
> - */
> ret = __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, freq, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> -
> err:
> mutex_unlock(&userspace_mutex);
> return ret;

Looks fine:

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-11 14:21    [W:0.056 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site