From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lan Tianyu Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Remove fossil comment of cpufreq_set_policy Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:28:41 +0800 Message-ID: <522FE369.3030106@intel.com> References: <1378824287-7696-1-git-send-email-tianyu.lan@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 2013=E5=B9=B409=E6=9C=8810=E6=97=A5 23:31, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10 September 2013 20:14, wrote: >> From: Lan Tianyu >> >> The cpufreq_set_policy() has been removed by commit 632786c. So remo= ve >> related comment. >> --- >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ---- >> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >=20 > I have got another patch that takes care of this while fixing other i= ssues.. > Yet to be posted though.. but I have queued it up for 3.13.. >=20 > https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=3Dpeople/vireshk/linux.git;a=3Dcommit= ;h=3D85267596078e3160b3b03de39d95c8e4b5bdf554 >=20 Ok. I get it. Please ignore it. I just find another such comment relate= d with cpufreq_set_policy(). Please have a look. =46rom 668e1b6fd94b5c0e56a651b4c60cbbc7a6868b46 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 200= 1 =46rom: Lan Tianyu Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:31:15 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Cpufreq/governor: Remove fossil comment cpufreq_set_policy() has been changed to origin __cpufreq_set_policy() and policy->lock has been converted to rewrite lock by commit 5a01f2. So remove it. Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c | 11 ----------- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c index 0307809..4dbf1db 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c @@ -38,18 +38,7 @@ static int cpufreq_set(struct cpufreq_policy *policy= , unsigned int freq) if (!per_cpu(cpu_is_managed, policy->cpu)) goto err; - /* - * We're safe from concurrent calls to ->target() here - * as we hold the userspace_mutex lock. If we were calling - * cpufreq_driver_target, a deadlock situation might occur: - * A: cpufreq_set (lock userspace_mutex) -> - * cpufreq_driver_target(lock policy->lock) - * B: cpufreq_set_policy(lock policy->lock) -> - * __cpufreq_governor -> - * cpufreq_governor_userspace (lock userspace_mutex) - */ ret =3D __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, freq, CPUFREQ_RELATION_= L); - err: mutex_unlock(&userspace_mutex); return ret; -- 1.8.4.rc0.1.g8f6a3e5.dirty --=20 Best regards Tianyu Lan