Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Esben Nielsen <[email protected]> wrote:
Hey,
This is an old problem of cpu_freq.c not compiling. I (re)send a fix
for it. This time as a real patch...
thanks - i've applied it and have released the -47-27 patch with this
fix included.
Yes, that's an obviously safe fix.
I asked on the cpufreq mailing list about this lock. Here's the answer I
got from Dominik Brodowski:
Dominik Brodowski wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 06:57:12PM +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
Hello,
I think that it's not necessary to take the policy->lock in cpufreq_add_dev.
Am I missing something? What is the lock supposed to protect from?
Well, indeed it is not necessary to take the policy->lock, although it
doesn't do any harm AFAICS. I added it to make sure that _all_ accesses to
the data is protected by the lock, how serialized they may ever be..
Thanks,
Dominik
Michal
-
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/
[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]
