From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752812Ab3EQXb5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 May 2013 19:31:57 -0400 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:57732 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751882Ab3EQXbw (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 May 2013 19:31:52 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Viresh Kumar Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robin.randhawa@arm.com, Steve.Bannister@arm.com, Liviu.Dudau@arm.com, charles.garcia-tobin@arm.com, arvind.chauhan@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.10-rc2 Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 01:40:27 +0200 Message-ID: <3949011.nZfu3g41l4@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.9.0+; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <10164364.7LZaY8si4T@vostro.rjw.lan> 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 Friday, May 17, 2013 07:22:05 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 17 May 2013 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:13:37 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> On 17 May 2013 02:21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > While I kind of understand why you want [3/3] to go into 3.10, I'm wondering > >> > about the other two patches. Why exactly are they needed now? > >> > >> First one: > >> > >> cpufreq: Add EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL for have_governor_per_policy > >> > >> is required so that governors can be compiled as module. Otherwise they > >> may break.. I haven't tried that but I believe that is the case. > > > > Did you try to build them as modules? > > That's what: "I haven't tried that but I believe that is the case.".. > Modules need variables to be exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > to be used by them.. And I thought this is pretty straight forward. Well, I actually meant "can you please verify your belief?". :-) And that's because I'm wondering why the zero-day build testing doesn't catch this problem. Apparently, it doesn't build .configs with cpufreq governors configured as modules, although I believe it does test "make allmodconfig" for a couple of architectures at least. What gives? Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.