Re: [PATCH] Conditionally check expected_preempt_count in __resched_legal()

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com> wrote:

> Commit 2d7d253548cffdce80f4e03664686e9ccb1b0ed7 ("fix cond_resched() fix")
> introduced an 'expected_preempt_count' parameter to __resched_legal() to fix
> a bug where it was returning a false negative when called from
> cond_resched_lock() and preemption was enabled.
> 
> Unfortunately this broke things for when preemption is disabled.
> preempt_count() will always return zero, thus failing the check against
> any value of expected_preempt_count not equal to zero. cond_resched_lock()
> for example, passes an expected_preempt_count value of 1.
> 
> So fix the fix for the cond_resched() fix by skipping the check of
> preempt_count() against expected_preempt_count when preemption is disabled.
> 
> Credit should go to Sunil Mushran for spotting the bug during testing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com>

well spotted. I'm wondering whether this piece of code has the highest 
amount of fixes per line of code ratio in the whole kernel ...

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/