lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix __wait_on_atomic_t() to call the action func if the counter != 0
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:49:24 +0100
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> Fix __wait_on_atomic_t() so that it calls the action func if the counter != 0
> rather than if the counter is 0 so as to be analogous to __wait_on_bit().
>
> Thanks to Yacine who found this by visual inspection.
>
> This will affect FS-Cache in that it will could fail to sleep correctly when
> trying to clean up after a netfs cookie is withdrawn.
>
> Reported-by: Yacine Belkadi <yacine.belkadi.1@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
> cc: Yacine Belkadi <yacine.belkadi.1@gmail.com>
> cc: Milosz Tanski <milosz@adfin.com>
> cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> ---
>
> kernel/wait.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/wait.c b/kernel/wait.c
> index ce0daa3..dec68bd 100644
> --- a/kernel/wait.c
> +++ b/kernel/wait.c
> @@ -333,7 +333,8 @@ int __wait_on_atomic_t(wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct wait_bit_queue *q,
> prepare_to_wait(wq, &q->wait, mode);
> val = q->key.flags;
> if (atomic_read(val) == 0)
> - ret = (*action)(val);
> + break;
> + ret = (*action)(val);
> } while (!ret && atomic_read(val) != 0);

nit: can you now eliminate the check for "val" in the while condition?
It doesn't look like it harms anything, but eliminating it would
probably simplify the code slightly...

> finish_wait(wq, &q->wait);
> return ret;
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-23 18:42    [W:0.091 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site