Hi,

On 12/01/16 15:31, Viresh Kumar wrote:

On 11-01-16, 17:35, Juri Lelli wrote:

quoted

@@ -2025,6 +2027,7 @@ int cpufreq_register_governor(struct cpufreq_governor *governor)
 	err = -EBUSY;
 	if (!find_governor(governor->name)) {
 		err = 0;
+		lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
 		list_add(&governor->governor_list, &cpufreq_governor_list);
 	}

Why here? This is how the routine looks like:

I guess I was simply over-paranoid. We can drop this assertion.

Thanks,

- Juri

int cpufreq_register_governor(struct cpufreq_governor *governor)
{
	int err;

	if (!governor)
		return -EINVAL;

	if (cpufreq_disabled())
		return -ENODEV;

	mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);

	governor->initialized = 0;
	err = -EBUSY;
	if (!find_governor(governor->name)) {
		err = 0;
		list_add(&governor->governor_list, &cpufreq_governor_list);
	}

	mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
	return err;
}


-- 
viresh