Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Catch double invocations of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end

2014-04-29 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 29 April 2014 18:36, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > Some cpufreq drivers were redundantly invoking the _begin() and _end() > APIs around frequency transitions, and this double invocation (one from > the cpufreq core and the other from the cpufreq driver) used to result > in a self-deadlock, leading

Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Catch double invocations of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end

2014-04-29 Thread Srivatsa S. Bhat
On 04/29/2014 06:39 PM, Meelis Roos wrote: >> >> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat >> --- >> >> v2: Removed the coverage of ASYNC_NOTIFICATION drivers, in order to avoid >> false-positives. > > I am confused - on top of what patches should I test it? > > Well, actually this is not a fix. Its

Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Catch double invocations of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end

2014-04-29 Thread Meelis Roos
> > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat > --- > > v2: Removed the coverage of ASYNC_NOTIFICATION drivers, in order to avoid > false-positives. I am confused - on top of what patches should I test it? > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |7 +++ > include/linux/cpufreq.h |1 + > 2 files

[PATCH v2] cpufreq: Catch double invocations of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end

2014-04-29 Thread Srivatsa S. Bhat
Some cpufreq drivers were redundantly invoking the _begin() and _end() APIs around frequency transitions, and this double invocation (one from the cpufreq core and the other from the cpufreq driver) used to result in a self-deadlock, leading to system hangs during boot. (The _begin() API makes

[PATCH v2] cpufreq: Catch double invocations of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end

2014-04-29 Thread Srivatsa S. Bhat
Some cpufreq drivers were redundantly invoking the _begin() and _end() APIs around frequency transitions, and this double invocation (one from the cpufreq core and the other from the cpufreq driver) used to result in a self-deadlock, leading to system hangs during boot. (The _begin() API makes

Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Catch double invocations of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end

2014-04-29 Thread Meelis Roos
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com --- v2: Removed the coverage of ASYNC_NOTIFICATION drivers, in order to avoid false-positives. I am confused - on top of what patches should I test it? drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |7 +++

Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Catch double invocations of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end

2014-04-29 Thread Srivatsa S. Bhat
On 04/29/2014 06:39 PM, Meelis Roos wrote: Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com --- v2: Removed the coverage of ASYNC_NOTIFICATION drivers, in order to avoid false-positives. I am confused - on top of what patches should I test it? Well, actually this is

Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Catch double invocations of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end

2014-04-29 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 29 April 2014 18:36, Srivatsa S. Bhat srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Some cpufreq drivers were redundantly invoking the _begin() and _end() APIs around frequency transitions, and this double invocation (one from the cpufreq core and the other from the cpufreq driver) used to result