Re: [RFC v3] cpufreq: Make sure frequency transitions are serialized

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 03/20/2014 03:03 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 20 March 2014 14:54, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 03/20/2014 02:07 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>     WARN_ON(policy->transition_ongoing);
>>>
>>
>> I guess you meant WARN_ON(!policy->transition_ongoing)
>> perhaps?
> 
> Ooops!!
> 
>> I'm not sure whether its really worth it, because it kinda looks
>> obvious. Not sure what kind of bugs it would catch. I can't think of any
>> such scenario :-(
> 
> Just to catch if somebody is sending a POSTCHANGE one without first
> sending a PRECHANGE one.. Just another check to make sure things are
> in order.
> 

Well, that's unlikely, since they will have to call _end() before
_begin() :-) That's the power of having great function names - they make
it impossible to use them incorrectly ;-) But anyway, I can add the check,
just in case somebody misses even such an obvious cue! :-)

By the way, I'm also thinking of using a spinlock instead of a mutex.
The critical section is tiny and we don't sleep inside the critical
section - sounds like the perfect case for a spinlock.

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

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