From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: Kernel warning in cpufreq_add_dev() Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 15:27:42 +0530 Message-ID: <20160909095742.GA18547@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-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:36717 "EHLO mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753810AbcIIJ5q (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Sep 2016 05:57:46 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id id6so26981661pad.3 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 02:57:45 -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: > 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? Right. I missed that. I have sent a patch just now in reply to the first email from Russell. That should fix it all.. @Russell: Can you please test/verify the patch I have sent now? -- viresh