Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:49:21 +0530 | Subject | Re: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1 | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
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);
| |