On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Does this work? Hey, it works for me once. It's pretty simple, and had
> better not have any recursion issues.
GAAH!!
What kind of _crap_ is this cpufreq thing?
Lookie here:
S06cpuspeed D DD94A324 2180 10241 10215 (NOTLB)
Call Trace:
[<c03c411d>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x4d/0x7b
[<c03c415a>] .text.lock.mutex+0xf/0x14
[<c0137651>] lock_cpu_hotplug+0xd/0xf
[<c012f9df>] __create_workqueue+0x52/0x11f
[<df0cd336>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x9e/0x2c5 [cpufreq_ondemand]
[<c0305d2a>] __cpufreq_governor+0x57/0xd8
[<c0305ee8>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x13d/0x1a9
[<c03060e4>] store_scaling_governor+0x12d/0x155
[<c03057a5>] store+0x34/0x45
[<c0199a6c>] sysfs_write_file+0x99/0xbf
[<c0164ac3>] vfs_write+0xab/0x157
[<c01650fc>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60
[<c0102d41>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x79
where it takes the cpu_hotplug lock in "store_scaling_governor()", and
then calls __cpufreq_set_policy(), and then that ondemand thing WILL TAKE
IT AGAIN!
What a piece of crap. Why, why, why?
[ Linus bangs his head against the wall until tears of blood course down
his face ]
I will here-by re-introduce the recursion thing for lock_cpu_hotplug, but
I will make it say some very rude things about idiots who create code like
this.
cpufreq (or at least ondemand) must DIE! And the people who wrote that
crap should have red-hot pokers jammed into some very uncomfortable
places.
Linus
-
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]
