[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140226165043.GA22802@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:50:43 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Regression with wait_event_timeout in next-20140226
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 05:35:19PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while testing next-20140226 I got an issue with the function
> wait_event_timeout. When this function timed out instead of returning
> 0, it returned the value of the timeout passed in parameter. I found
> that reverting "sched/wait: Suppress Sparse 'variable shadowing'
> warning" fixed this regression.
>
> I got this issue in the driver drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c.
Ah indeed. We actually rely on the shadowing for ___wait_cond_timeout().
We further used the __ret variable in __wait_event_timeout()'s cmd
argument: __ret = schedule_timeout(__ret). That now explicitly uses the
wrong __ret.
Yeah, we need to pull that patch.
--
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