Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:07:06 -0700 | From | Saravana Kannan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, store_scaling_governor requires policy->rwsem to be held for duration of changing governors [v2] |
| |
On 07/30/2014 07:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 06:36:00 PM Saravana Kannan wrote: >> On 07/30/2014 02:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:18:25 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>>> >>>> On 07/29/2014 08:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 07:46:02 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>> >>> [cut] >>> >>>>>> This patch effectively reverts commit 955ef483. >> >> The issue reported in this patch is valid. We are seeing that internally >> too. I believe I reported it in another thread (within the past month). >> >> However, the original patch fixes a real deadlock issue (I'm too tired >> to look it up now). We can revet the original, but it's going to bring >> back the original issue. I just want to make sure Prarit and Raphael >> realize this before proceeding. >> >> I do have plans for a proper fix for the mainline (not stable branches), >> but plan to do that after the current set of suspend/hotplug patches go >> through. The fix would be easier to make after that. >> >>>>> >>>>> OK, I'm convinced by this. >>>>> >>>>> I suppose we should push it for -stable from 3.10 through 3.15.x, right? >>>> >>>> Rafael, I think that is a good idea. I'm not sure what the protocol is for >>>> adding stable@kernel.org though ... >>> >>> I'll take care of this, thanks! >>> >> >> But you aren't going to pull the in for the next release, right? > > What do you mean? >
Reverting the commit will bring back another dead lock issue. So, you don't want to revert it on mainline. Do I still not make sense because I'm not using the right terms?
-Saravana
-- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |