From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stanislaw Gruszka Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid wiping out pr->performance during preregistering Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:04:56 +0200 Message-ID: <20090330100456.319fa3c8@dhcp-lab-109.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <20090324134159.4c83b445@dhcp-lab-109.englab.brq.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:42856 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752202AbZC3ITI (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:19:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Venkatesh Pallipadi On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:15:23 -0400 (EDT) Len Brown wrote: > > When cpufreq driver call acpi_processor_preregister_performance() , function > > will clean up pr->performance even if there is possibly already registered > > other cpufreq driver. The patch fix this potential problem. It also remove > > double checks in P domain basic validity code and move these checks to function > > where _PSD data is captured. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka > > --- > > drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++-------------------- > > 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > > > What failure symptom does the user see before this patch is applied? > Does it merit backporting to .stable? Nothing destructive, kernel ignore P-states limit requested by BIOS using ACPI _PPC . I think this patch is not so good candidate for backporting. Cheers Stanislaw Gruszka