Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Jul 2013 14:05:22 -0500 | From | Nathan Zimmer <> | Subject | Re: /proc/timer_list and weird behavior with dropbear |
| |
On 07/19/2013 12:03 PM, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote: > 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 = {
That certainly does make the issue go away. I think a better solution would be to have an increment in the timer_list_start.
| |