From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Remove fossil comment of cpufreq_set_policy
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:39:11 -0400
Message-ID: <5230646F.3030701@intel.com>
References: <1378824287-7696-1-git-send-email-tianyu.lan@intel.com> <CAKohponpX9AedBrsASojK7fKS-rRN-AQwJT42=mrOJcNpGqE+w@mail.gmail.com> <522FE369.3030106@intel.com> <CAKohponyaogXLr5sJzQbb6ZhswMWfwhFTm-b=4Ztzg=UmKx_ig@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKohponyaogXLr5sJzQbb6ZhswMWfwhFTm-b=4Ztzg=UmKx_ig@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" <cpufreq@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On 09/11/2013 06:08 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11 September 2013 08:58, Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> wrote:
>>  From 668e1b6fd94b5c0e56a651b4c60cbbc7a6868b46 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
>> 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 <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   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 = __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, freq, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
>> -
>>    err:
>>          mutex_unlock(&userspace_mutex);
>>          return ret;
>
> Looks fine:
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>

Thanks. I will send formal version.