On 19 September 2013 23:41, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> But there was no code to set the per-cpu values to -1 to begin with. Since
> the per-cpu variable was defined as static, it would have been initialized
> to zero. Thus, we would never actually hit the BUG_ON() condition, since
> policy_cpu didn't turn out to be -1.
Really!! Or I have turned blind (and there is very strong chance of that,
considering the amount of silly mistakes I do :) )...
I picked it up from 474deff7 only:
@@ -2148,10 +2125,8 @@ static int __init cpufreq_core_init(void)
if (cpufreq_disabled())
return -ENODEV;
- for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
- per_cpu(cpufreq_policy_cpu, cpu) = -1;
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
init_rwsem(&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu));
- }
cpufreq_global_kobject = kobject_create();
BUG_ON(!cpufreq_global_kobject);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
