From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: 3.18: lockdep problems in cpufreq Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 03:32:06 +0200 Message-ID: <4248436.YMvuzoKMLH@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <20141214213655.GA11285@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <5160300.5D2Dvly8u9@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150813081744.GN7557@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:44418 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751011AbbHRBEz (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:04:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150813081744.GN7557@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Eduardo Valentin , Viresh Kumar , Yadwinder Singh Brar , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" On Thursday, August 13, 2015 09:17:44 AM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 03:20:35AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 06:03:57 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:05:55AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 18, 2015 07:56:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 09:11:53AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > > On 16 December 2014 at 04:39, Russell King - ARM Linux > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Well, here's a patch which I'm running on top of 3.18 at the moment, > > > > > > > which is basically what I described in my email, and I'm running with it > > > > > > > and it is without any lockdep complaint. > > > > > > > > > > > > We need two separate patches now, one for 3.18 and other one for 3.19-rc. > > > > > > 3.19 has see lots of changes in this particular file and so we need to > > > > > > change few things here. > > > > > > > > > > What happened with this? I'm still carrying the patch. > > > > > > > > This should go in through the thermal tree. Eduardo? > > > > > > Having waited a long time for any kind of response from Eduardo, I've > > > given up. My conclusion is that Eduardo isn't interested in this. > > > > > > I've re-checked, and the AB-BA deadlock is still there in the latest > > > code. So, I've taken it upon myself to throw this into my for-next > > > branch to force the issue - not something I _want_ to do, but I'm doing > > > this out of frustration. It's clear to me that "playing nice" by email > > > does _not_ work with some people. > > > > > > I'm rather hoping that Stephen reports a merge conflict with linux-next > > > this evening to highlight this situation. I've added additional commentry > > > to the commit message on the patch giving the reason why I've done this, > > > and the relevant message IDs showing the past history. > > > > > > I've not decided whether I'm going to ask Linus to take this patch > > > directly or not, that rather depends whether there's any co-operation > > > from Eduardo on this. I'd rather Eduardo took the patch. > > > > > > The patch I have has had to be updated again for changes to the driver, > > > but I really don't see the point of re-posting it just for it to be > > > ignored yet again. > > > > > > I'm really disappointed by this dysfunctional state of affairs, and > > > that what should be an urgent fix for an observable problem is still > > > not merged some nine months after it was first identified. > > > > I guess it might help if you sent the updated patch in a new thread. > > That I doubt. Eduardo has not bothered to reply at _any_ time. I > have to question whether there is anyone even reading that email > address, or whether it's a redirect to /dev/null. All the evidence I > have right now is that this Eduardo is a ficticous character. > > I would have at least expected some complaints when I said "I've put > it in linux-next" but... absolutely nothing. > > So... my only conclusion is that you're all pulling my leg that there > _is_ this "Eduardo" maintainer who's supposed to be taking patches for > this stuff. Well, that's the situation as per MAINTAINERS today. You seem to be concerned that it may not reflect the reality, but in that case I can only recommend sending a patch against MAINTAINERS to remove Eduardo from there. > As I've said, I'm not bothering with this anymore, it's just far too > much effort to play these stupid games. I'm not sure what you mean by "these stupid games" here. > The deadlock can stay for all I care. Fair enough. Thanks, Rafael