[PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Remove fossil comment of cpufreq_set_policy

[PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Remove fossil comment of cpufreq_set_policy

[tianyu.lan]

From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>

The cpufreq_set_policy() has been removed by commit 632786c. So remove
related comment.
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 5c75e31..a504313 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -506,10 +506,6 @@ static ssize_t store_scaling_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 						&new_policy.governor))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	/*
-	 * Do not use cpufreq_set_policy here or the user_policy.max
-	 * will be wrongly overridden
-	 */
 	ret = __cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
 
 	policy->user_policy.policy = policy->policy;
-- 
1.8.2.1

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Remove fossil comment of cpufreq_set_policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 10 September 2013 20:14,  <tianyu.lan@intel.com> wrote:
> From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
>
> The cpufreq_set_policy() has been removed by commit 632786c. So remove
> related comment.
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

I have got another patch that takes care of this while fixing other issues..
Yet to be posted though.. but I have queued it up for 3.13..

https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vireshk/linux.git;a=commit;h=85267596078e3160b3b03de39d95c8e4b5bdf554

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Remove fossil comment of cpufreq_set_policy

[Lan Tianyu]

On 2013年09月10日 23:31, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 10 September 2013 20:14,  <tianyu.lan@intel.com> wrote:
>> From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
>>
>> The cpufreq_set_policy() has been removed by commit 632786c. So remove
>> related comment.
>> ---
>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
>>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> I have got another patch that takes care of this while fixing other issues..
> Yet to be posted though.. but I have queued it up for 3.13..
> 
> https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vireshk/linux.git;a=commit;h=85267596078e3160b3b03de39d95c8e4b5bdf554
> 
Ok. I get it. Please ignore it. I just find another such comment related
with cpufreq_set_policy(). Please have a look.


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;
--
1.8.4.rc0.1.g8f6a3e5.dirty

-- 
Best regards
Tianyu Lan

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Remove fossil comment of cpufreq_set_policy

[Viresh Kumar]

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>

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Remove fossil comment of cpufreq_set_policy

[Lan Tianyu]

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.