Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq_ondemand.c: don't use _WORK_NAR

From: David Howells
Date: Mon Feb 19 2007 - 06:34:51 EST

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Looks like dbs_timer() is very careful wrt per_cpu(cpu_dbs_info),
> and it doesn't need the help of WORK_STRUCT_NOAUTOREL.

Actually, I think my problem with this was dbs_info->sample_type, but reading
it again, I'm not sure that it's actually a problem as the work function will
probably not ever be executing on two or more CPUs simultaneously because of
the deferral time involved.

So, your patch is probably fair enough. Certainly, deletion isn't a problem.

Acked-By: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at