Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220516030251.42323-1-schspa@gmail.com> <20220516030251.42323-2-schspa@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220516030251.42323-2-schspa@gmail.com>
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 May 2022 11:25:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKohpokHFd=EAOXvpecde=QRGEq8Ek+P6UsLjfVDrW0nOspuFg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] cpufreq: make interface functions and lock holding
 state clear
To:     Schspa Shi <schspa@gmail.com>
Cc:     rafael@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 04:12, Schspa Shi <schspa@gmail.com> 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 | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

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