On 09/20/2013 09:49 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 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);
>
Heh, looks like it was me who was blind then :-/
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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/
