On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:15:32 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [PATCH] cpufreq: make the transition_notifier chain use SRCU > > (b4dfdbb3c707474a2254c5b4d7e62be31a4b7da9) > > > > breaks cpu frequency notification users, which register the callback > > on core_init level. Interestingly enough the registration survives the > > uninitialized head, but the registered user is lost by: > > i have hit this bug in -rt (it caused a lockup) and have fixed it - > forgot to send it upstream. Find the patch below. > > Ingo > > ----------------> > From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync > > init_cpufreq_transition_notifier_list() should execute first, which is a > core_initcall, so mark cpufreq_tsc() core_initcall_sync. That's not a terribly useful changelog. What bug is being fixed. What does "first" mean? > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- linux.orig/arch/x86_64/kernel/tsc.c > +++ linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/tsc.c > @@ -138,7 +138,11 @@ static int __init cpufreq_tsc(void) > return 0; > } > > -core_initcall(cpufreq_tsc); > +/* > + * init_cpufreq_transition_notifier_list() should execute first, > + * which is a core_initcall, so mark this one core_initcall_sync: > + */ > +core_initcall_sync(cpufreq_tsc); Would prefer that we not use the _sync levels. They're there as a synchronisation for MULTITHREAD_PROBE and might disappear at any time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
