Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.12.5-rt6 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:16:31 +0100 |
| |
Hi Sebastian,
Looks like there's a booboo here:
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 10:14 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > index 22fa2e2..9c87a17 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > @@ -1115,9 +1129,11 @@ unsigned long wait_task_inactive(struct task_struct *p, long match_state) > * is actually now running somewhere else! > */ > while (task_running(rq, p)) { > - if (match_state && unlikely(p->state != match_state) > - && unlikely(p->saved_state != match_state)) > + if (match_state) { > + if (!unlikely(check_task_state(p, match_state))) > + return 0; > return 0; > + } > cpu_relax(); > } >
"ptrace: fix ptrace vs tasklist_lock race" added..
@@ -1068,8 +1082,11 @@ unsigned long wait_task_inactive(struct * is actually now running somewhere else! */ while (task_running(rq, p)) { - if (match_state && unlikely(p->state != match_state)) + if (match_state) { + if (!unlikely(check_task_state(p, match_state))) + return 0; return 0; + } cpu_relax(); } ..which is how it stays with the whole series applied.
The patch contains hunk 2 from
"sched/rt: Fix wait_task_interactive() to test rt_spin_lock state",
which went away in -rt6, so it seems the busted hunk should be as below if the two are to be merged.
@@ -1068,8 +1082,10 @@ unsigned long wait_task_inactive(struct * is actually now running somewhere else! */ while (task_running(rq, p)) { - if (match_state && unlikely(p->state != match_state)) + if (match_state && unlikely(p->state != match_state) + && unlikely(p->saved_state != match_state)) return 0; + } cpu_relax(); }
| |