Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Fix locking issues with governors

[Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>]

On Thursday 25 Jun 2020 at 15:32:43 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:14 PM Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Viresh
> >
> > On Thursday 25 Jun 2020 at 16:24:16 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > The locking around governors handling isn't adequate currently. The list
> > > of governors should never be traversed without locking in place. Also we
> > > must make sure the governor isn't removed while it is still referenced
> > > by code.
> >
> > Thanks for having a look at this!
> >
> > This solves the issue for the reference to policy->last_governor, but
> > given that your patch is based on top of
> > 20200623142138.209513-3-qperret@google.com, 'default_governor' needs a
> > similar treatment I think.
> 
> So I would prefer to rebase the $subject patch from Viresh on top of
> the current mainline, apply it first and rebase the "default governor"
> series on top of it - and include the changes needed for the default
> governor handling in there.

Right, and Viresh's patch might be -stable material too? In any case,
making it standalone makes a lot of sense.

Thanks,
Quentin