3.18: lockdep problems in cpufreq

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 09:17:44 AM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 03:20:35AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 06:03:57 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:05:55AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 18, 2015 07:56:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 09:11:53AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > > > On 16 December 2014 at 04:39, Russell King - ARM Linux
> > > > > > <linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > > Well, here's a patch which I'm running on top of 3.18 at the moment,
> > > > > > > which is basically what I described in my email, and I'm running with it
> > > > > > > and it is without any lockdep complaint.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We need two separate patches now, one for 3.18 and other one for 3.19-rc.
> > > > > > 3.19 has see lots of changes in this particular file and so we need to
> > > > > > change few things here.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What happened with this?  I'm still carrying the patch.
> > > > 
> > > > This should go in through the thermal tree.  Eduardo?
> > > 
> > > Having waited a long time for any kind of response from Eduardo, I've
> > > given up.  My conclusion is that Eduardo isn't interested in this.
> > > 
> > > I've re-checked, and the AB-BA deadlock is still there in the latest
> > > code.  So, I've taken it upon myself to throw this into my for-next
> > > branch to force the issue - not something I _want_ to do, but I'm doing
> > > this out of frustration.  It's clear to me that "playing nice" by email
> > > does _not_ work with some people.
> > > 
> > > I'm rather hoping that Stephen reports a merge conflict with linux-next
> > > this evening to highlight this situation.  I've added additional commentry
> > > to the commit message on the patch giving the reason why I've done this,
> > > and the relevant message IDs showing the past history.
> > > 
> > > I've not decided whether I'm going to ask Linus to take this patch
> > > directly or not, that rather depends whether there's any co-operation
> > > from Eduardo on this.  I'd rather Eduardo took the patch.
> > > 
> > > The patch I have has had to be updated again for changes to the driver,
> > > but I really don't see the point of re-posting it just for it to be
> > > ignored yet again.
> > > 
> > > I'm really disappointed by this dysfunctional state of affairs, and
> > > that what should be an urgent fix for an observable problem is still
> > > not merged some nine months after it was first identified.
> > 
> > I guess it might help if you sent the updated patch in a new thread.
> 
> That I doubt.  Eduardo has not bothered to reply at _any_ time.  I
> have to question whether there is anyone even reading that email
> address, or whether it's a redirect to /dev/null.  All the evidence I
> have right now is that this Eduardo is a ficticous character.
> 
> I would have at least expected some complaints when I said "I've put
> it in linux-next" but... absolutely nothing.
> 
> So... my only conclusion is that you're all pulling my leg that there
> _is_ this "Eduardo" maintainer who's supposed to be taking patches for
> this stuff.

Well, that's the situation as per MAINTAINERS today.  You seem to be concerned
that it may not reflect the reality, but in that case I can only recommend
sending a patch against MAINTAINERS to remove Eduardo from there.

> As I've said, I'm not bothering with this anymore, it's just far too
> much effort to play these stupid games.

I'm not sure what you mean by "these stupid games" here.

> The deadlock can stay for all I care.

Fair enough.

Thanks,
Rafael