From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754846Ab3ITNTA (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:19:00 -0400 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:58739 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754590Ab3ITNS6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:18:58 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Viresh Kumar , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: return EEXIST instead of EBUSY for second registering Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:30:08 +0200 Message-ID: <3290463.fBbGMovmdx@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.11.0+; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1379563520-7221-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:30:04 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 20 September 2013 07:01, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> Sorry, looks like this one is not enough. Well, I've already applied this one and it makes sense to me anyway. > >> please let me know if you prefer me send addon patch > >> or revised one. > > > > Atleast you can let us know what the problem is? And then we > > can decide on that.. But anyway, you can send a new patch > > based over latest linux-next (which will have your original patch), > > and then leave it onto Rafael to merge it or have two patches.. > > (though I am quite sure he will not drop anything now, unless its > > too screwed.., at worst he might revert it..).. > > looks like the crash is intermittent..., so i thought that patch fixed > the problem. > but later I found other suspicious print out. So, does it mean that the $subject patch fixes the issue for you to some extent, but more changes are necessary to make it go away completely? > please check new one: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2915181/ I see. I *think* we can just drop the module requesting stuff entirely, because it doesn't seem to work anyway and udev is handling this for us. Thanks, Rafael