lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1
From
On 19 September 2013 23:41, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> But there was no code to set the per-cpu values to -1 to begin with. Since
> the per-cpu variable was defined as static, it would have been initialized
> to zero. Thus, we would never actually hit the BUG_ON() condition, since
> policy_cpu didn't turn out to be -1.

Really!! Or I have turned blind (and there is very strong chance of that,
considering the amount of silly mistakes I do :) )...

I picked it up from 474deff7 only:

@@ -2148,10 +2125,8 @@ static int __init cpufreq_core_init(void)
if (cpufreq_disabled())
return -ENODEV;

- for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
- per_cpu(cpufreq_policy_cpu, cpu) = -1;
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
init_rwsem(&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu));
- }

cpufreq_global_kobject = kobject_create();
BUG_ON(!cpufreq_global_kobject);


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-20 06:41    [W:0.063 / U:6.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site