Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync

On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 13:20 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >  
> > -core_initcall(cpufreq_tsc);
> > +/*
> > + * init_cpufreq_transition_notifier_list() should execute first,
> > + * which is a core_initcall, so mark this one core_initcall_sync:
> > + */
> > +core_initcall_sync(cpufreq_tsc);
> 
> Would prefer that we not use the _sync levels.  They're there as a
> synchronisation for MULTITHREAD_PROBE and might disappear at any time.

Works also fine with postcore_init, but I'm more concerned about the
delayed notification (after the actual change) which is introduced by
this srcu change.

	tglx


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • BUG: cpufreq notification broken
    • From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
  • [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
• Next by Date: Re: BUG: cpufreq notification broken
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]