From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: Kernel warning in cpufreq_add_dev() Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:41:37 +0530 Message-ID: <20160831041137.GE5539@vireshk-i7> References: <20160819110032.GM1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <2310664.2BksGViL4r@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160824131316.GI25143@ubuntu> <1496109.Jd9MGDryNS@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:33467 "EHLO mail-pf0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750914AbcHaEMS (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:12:18 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f170.google.com with SMTP id y134so14836119pfg.0 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1496109.Jd9MGDryNS@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 31-08-16, 03:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 06:43:16 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 22-08-16, 19:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > But it will be called in that path during physical CPU hot-add, won't it? > > > > What about something like this instead (completely untested) ? > > Inline, please? I am not sure what that means. I pasted that inline in my previous mail only. > > @Russell: Can you please try this ?? > > I was thinking about something similar, but won't the WARN_ON()s in > cpufreq_add/remove_dev_symlink() still trigger, say if there's more > than one CPU in a policy and both happen to be online initially? real CPUs should already be online and their device structure should be available, isn't it ? -- viresh