On 21-07-15, 03:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> That said, cpu_present_mask may only be updated after calling
> arch_unregister_cpu(), so checking it in cpufreq_remove_dev() doesn't
> really help.
No, it is indeed useful. This is a snippet from the latest code we
have:
cpumask_copy(&mask, policy->related_cpus);
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &mask);
/*
* Free policy only if all policy->related_cpus are removed
* physically.
*/
if (cpumask_intersects(&mask, cpu_present_mask)) {
remove_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, cpu);
return 0;
}
cpufreq_policy_free(policy, true);
So what we are checking in the 'if' block is: "Is any CPU from
related_cpus, apart from the one getting removed now, present in the
system."
If not, then free the policy.
> It looks like using cpufreq_remove_dev() as the subsys ->remove_dev
> callback is a mistake as it cannot really tell the difference between
> that code path and the CPU offline one.
What do you mean by this? Doesn't the sif parameter confirms that its
called from subsys path ?
--
viresh
--
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/
