Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:03:54 +0200 | From | Holger Hans Peter Freyther <> | Subject | Re: /proc/timer_list and weird behavior with dropbear |
| |
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:45:15AM -0500, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> I hadn't noticed anything. > Let me try your program and see what I may have missed.
Hi,
I neither know the semantics of the timer_list nor how to use seq_file correctly. What happens is that timer_list_next will only be called once. This means that iter->cpu will never be increased.
This just moves to the next CPU when stop is called (e.g. nothing was added once the print_tickdevice was printed). Do you think this could be correct?
diff --git a/kernel/time/timer_list.c b/kernel/time/timer_list.c index 3bdf283..8d36a3d 100644 --- a/kernel/time/timer_list.c +++ b/kernel/time/timer_list.c @@ -327,8 +327,10 @@ static void *timer_list_next(struct seq_file *file, void *v, loff_t *offset) return timer_list_start(file, offset); } -static void timer_list_stop(struct seq_file *seq, void *v) +static void timer_list_stop(struct seq_file *file, void *v) { + struct timer_list_iter *iter = file->private; + iter->cpu = cpumask_next(iter->cpu, cpu_online_mask); } static const struct seq_operations timer_list_sops = {
| |