Messages in this thread | | | From | Pietro Borrello <> | Date | Mon, 6 Feb 2023 23:38:09 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] sched: pick_next_rt_entity(): checked list_entry |
| |
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 17:57, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 11:23:42AM -0500 Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:01:16 +0000 > > Pietro Borrello <borrello@diag.uniroma1.it> wrote: > > > > > index ed2a47e4ddae..c024529d8416 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c > > > @@ -1777,6 +1777,7 @@ static struct sched_rt_entity *pick_next_rt_entity(struct rt_rq *rt_rq) > > > BUG_ON(idx >= MAX_RT_PRIO); > > > > > > queue = array->queue + idx; > > > + SCHED_WARN_ON(list_empty(queue)); > > > > I wonder if we should make this: > > > > if (SCHED_WARN_ON(list_empty(queue))) > > return NULL; > > > > > next = list_entry(queue->next, struct sched_rt_entity, run_list); > > > > > > return next; > > > @@ -1789,7 +1790,6 @@ static struct task_struct *_pick_next_task_rt(struct rq *rq) > > > > > > do { > > > rt_se = pick_next_rt_entity(rt_rq); > > > - BUG_ON(!rt_se); > > > > if (unlikely(!rt_se)) > > return NULL; > > I think that's better than taking a digger in one of the subsequent macros. >
Thanks for the feedback. Fixed in v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230128-list-entry-null-check-sched-v3-1-b1a71bd1ac6b@diag.uniroma1.it/T/#u
Best regards, Pietro
| |