[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 14:17:15 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>
Cc: linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: UML time-travel warning from __run_timers
On Mon, Apr 04 2022 at 10:37, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-04-04 at 10:32 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
>> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
>> @@ -1724,9 +1724,8 @@ static inline void __run_timers(struct t
>> /*
>> * The only possible reason for not finding any expired
>> * timer at this clk is that all matching timers have been
>> - * dequeued.
>> + * dequeued or no timer has been ever queued.
>> */
>> - WARN_ON_ONCE(!levels && !base->next_expiry_recalc);
>>
>
> So I'm pretty sure we don't even need to test a patch simply removing
> the WARN_ON_ONCE() since the entire problem Vincent reported was hitting
> the WARN_ON_ONCE :)
:)
> (And I'm pretty sure I did at some point test some additional condition
> inside it)
>
> Are you going to merge that patch?
Let me write a coherent changelog.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists