On Friday 03 July 2009 16:28:43 Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
...
I still do not see the need of dbs_mutex protects data in
dbs_tuners_ins
from concurrent changes, though. If someone enlightens me, that would
be appreciated.
OK. Consider these two happening in parallel.
echo 0
On Friday 03 July 2009 02:08:30 venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com wrote:
Commit b14893a62c73af0eca414cfed505b8c09efc613c although it was very
much needed to properly cleanup ondemand timer, opened-up a can of worms
related to locking dependencies in cpufreq.
Patch here defines the need for
Enberg; Mathieu Desnoyers
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] cpufreq: Eliminate the recent lockdep
warnings in cpufreq
On Friday 03 July 2009 02:08:30 venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com wrote:
Commit b14893a62c73af0eca414cfed505b8c09efc613c although it was very
much needed to properly cleanup ondemand timer, opened
* venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com (venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com) wrote:
Commit b14893a62c73af0eca414cfed505b8c09efc613c although it was very
much needed to properly cleanup ondemand timer, opened-up a can of worms
related to locking dependencies in cpufreq.
Patch here defines the need for
Young; Pekka Enberg; Thomas Renninger
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] cpufreq: Eliminate the recent lockdep
warnings in cpufreq
* venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com (venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com) wrote:
Commit b14893a62c73af0eca414cfed505b8c09efc613c although it was very
much needed to properly cleanup
; kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org; Ingo
Molnar; Rafael J. Wysocki; Dave Young; Pekka Enberg; Thomas Renninger
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] cpufreq: Eliminate the recent lockdep
warnings in cpufreq
* venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com (venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com) wrote:
Commit
