Re: [PATCH][experimantal] cpufreq: governor: Use an atomic variable for synchronization

Viresh Kumar
2015-12-08T14:56:58Z

On 08-12-15, 15:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> It doesn't look nice, but then having a lockless timer function is worth
> it in my view.
>
> The code in gov_cancel_work() runs relatively rarely, but the timer
> function can run very often, so avoiding the lock in there is a priority
> to me.
>
> Plus we can avoid disabling interrupts in two places this way.

Okay, that's good enough then. I hope you will be sending these
patches now, right? And ofcourse, we need documentation in this case
as well.

--
viresh