From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Subject: Re: cpufreq_stats NULL deref on second system suspend Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:44:41 +0530 Message-ID: <523169E1.60304@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <522E1FEF.6080803@wwwdotorg.org> <1775778.MeiRhuYy7o@vostro.rjw.lan> <522F86AD.6010603@wwwdotorg.org> <2521560.SfeNbV74nj@vostro.rjw.lan> <52304439.3030301@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5230509D.6040205@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <52315E9A.3000607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <52316334.6080603@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Stephen Warren , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , cpufreq List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 09/12/2013 12:22 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12 September 2013 12:16, Srivatsa S. Bhat > wrote: >> Of course, if we change the suspend/resume sequence and that fixes this, that >> would be like getting it for free, nobody would say no to it ;-) > > Not really :) > > Policy with 4 CPUs, 0,1,2,3, policy->cpu currently set to 1, 2 or 3... > > We will remove CPUs in order 3,2,1 and add back in 1,2,3... Or Vice Versa > > policy->cpu after resume is 0 :) > Ah, great counter-example! :-) Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat