From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/10] cpufreq: governor: Use common mutex for dbs_data protection Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:23:41 +0530 Message-ID: <20160205065341.GE21792@vireshk> References: <3705929.bslqXH980s@vostro.rjw.lan> <9008098.QDD8C89zDx@vostro.rjw.lan> <76588769.1gWBaNHTiQ@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <76588769.1gWBaNHTiQ@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux PM list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Srinivas Pandruvada , Juri Lelli , Steve Muckle , Saravana Kannan List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 05-02-16, 03:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > Every governor relying on the common code in cpufreq_governor.c > has to provide its own mutex in struct common_dbs_data. However, > there actually is no need to have a separate mutex per governor > for this purpose, they may be using the same global mutex just > fine. Accordingly, introduce a single common mutex for that and > drop the mutex field from struct common_dbs_data. > > That at least will ensure that the mutex is always present and > initialized regardless of what the particular governors do. > > Another benefit is that the common code does not need a pointer to > a governor-related structure to get to the mutex which sometimes > helps. > > Finally, it makes the code generally easier to follow. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > Acked-by: Saravana Kannan Acked-by: Viresh Kumar -- viresh