From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Saravana Kannan Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/19] cpufreq: assert policy->rwsem is held in __cpufreq_governor Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 13:38:32 -0800 Message-ID: <56B121D8.7080200@codeaurora.org> References: <1452533760-13787-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20160112102025.GC1084@ubuntu> <56AC04E3.8090900@codeaurora.org> <1703921.2AHaiQoggk@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160201060943.GH13476@vireshk> <56AFBEE5.70501@codeaurora.org> <20160202063602.GG31828@vireshk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160202063602.GG31828@vireshk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Juri Lelli , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Zijlstra , Michael Turquette , Steve Muckle , Vincent Guittot , Morten Rasmussen , dietmar.eggemann@arm.com List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 02/01/2016 10:36 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 01-02-16, 22:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> I'm not sure what you mean by "the sysfs lock" here? The policy rwsem >> or something else? > > He perhaps referred to the s_active.lock that we see in traces. > Yeah, that's what I mean. I generally don't use the exact name of the lock in emails (lazy to look it up) if there isn't a lot of chance for mistaking it for another lock. -Saravana -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project