From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: 3.18: lockdep problems in cpufreq Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:20:35 +0200 Message-ID: <5160300.5D2Dvly8u9@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <20141214213655.GA11285@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <2574268.XBqpdL2VLI@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150811170357.GA24529@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]:41320 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751182AbbHMAxT (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:53:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150811170357.GA24529@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 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. -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.