Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Fri, 13 May 2022 09:59:25 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Schspa Shi <schspa@gmail.com>
Cc:     rafael@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cpufreq: make interface functions and lock
 holding state clear
Message-ID: <20220513042925.42hvv26ejup6js3h@vireshk-i7>
References: <20220512135231.10076-1-schspa@gmail.com>
 <20220512135231.10076-2-schspa@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220512135231.10076-2-schspa@gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 12-05-22, 21:52, Schspa Shi wrote:
> cpufreq_offline() calls offline() and exit() under the policy rwsem
> But they are called outside the rwsem in cpufreq_online().
> 
> This patch move the offline(), exit(), online(), init() to be inside
> of policy rwsem to achieve a clear lock relationship.
> 
> All the init() online() implement only initialize policy object without
> holding this lock and won't call cpufreq APIs need to hold this lock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Schspa Shi <schspa@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

-- 
viresh