[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <528E158C.8000309@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:15:40 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
johan.eker@...csson.com, p.faure@...tech.ch,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
michael@...rulasolutions.com, fchecconi@...il.com,
tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it, nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it,
luca.abeni@...tn.it, dhaval.giani@...il.com, hgu1972@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
insop.song@...il.com, liming.wang@...driver.com, jkacur@...hat.com,
harald.gustafsson@...csson.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
bruce.ashfield@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE structures & implementation.
On 11/20/2013 09:23 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:43:37 +0100
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>> +/*
>> + * This function validates the new parameters of a -deadline task.
>> + * We ask for the deadline not being zero, and greater or equal
>> + * than the runtime.
>> + */
>> +static bool
>> +__checkparam_dl(const struct sched_param2 *prm)
>> +{
>> + return prm && (&prm->sched_deadline) != 0 &&
>> + (s64)(&prm->sched_deadline - &prm->sched_runtime) >= 0;
>
> Patch 6 brought this to my attention. Looks like using the address of
> the fields is wrong. I know patch 6 fixes this, but lets make it
> correct in this patch first.
>
Fixed.
Thanks,
- Juri
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> * check the target process has a UID that matches the current process's
>> */
>> static bool check_same_owner(struct task_struct *p)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists