On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:17:11AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > It _looks_ like we're leaking a refcount on that lock, but I don't
> > > see where. It's a shame you can't reproduce this easily, as
> > > cpufreq.debug=7 would give us more clues. (And
> > > CONFIG_CPUFREQ_DEBUG=y)
> >
> > So we're missing some unlocks in some error paths. It's feasible you
> > hit one of those. This patch should be the fix for that.
>
> since it's not really reproducible (i failed to get it since then), how
> about you push your fix upstream (it's an obviously correct fix), we
> consider this regression fixed and i'll re-notify you if there's still
> any problem left. It's not like there's any escape from make randconfig
> bootup test coverage in the long run ;-)
Yeah, will push it to Linus today.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
--
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]
