Hi Srivatsa,
I may be wrong but it looks something is wrong in this patch.
On 12 July 2013 03:47, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1239,29 +1263,40 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev,
> if ((cpus == 1) && (cpufreq_driver->target))
> __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT);
>
> - pr_debug("%s: removing link, cpu: %d\n", __func__, cpu);
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(data);
> + if (!frozen) {
> + pr_debug("%s: removing link, cpu: %d\n", __func__, cpu);
> + cpufreq_cpu_put(data);
So, we don't decrement usage count here. But we are still increasing
counts on cpufreq_add_dev after resume, isn't it?
So, we wouldn't be able to free policy struct once all the cpus of a
policy are removed after suspend/resume has happened once.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
