Hi Drew,
On 22/03/2021 09:31, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:24:11PM +0000, Nikos Nikoleris wrote:
Signed-off-by: Nikos Nikoleris <nikos.nikoleris@xxxxxxx>
---
lib/arm/asm/cpumask.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/arm/asm/cpumask.h b/lib/arm/asm/cpumask.h
index 6683bb6..02124de 100644
--- a/lib/arm/asm/cpumask.h
+++ b/lib/arm/asm/cpumask.h
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static inline void cpumask_copy(cpumask_t *dst, const cpumask_t *src)
static inline int cpumask_next(int cpu, const cpumask_t *mask)
{
- while (cpu < nr_cpus && !cpumask_test_cpu(++cpu, mask))
+ while (++cpu < nr_cpus && !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mask))
;
return cpu;
Thanks for reviewing this!
This looks like the right thing to do, but I'm surprised that
I've never seen an assert in cpumask_test_cpu, even though
it looks like we call cpumask_next with cpu == nr_cpus - 1
in several places.
cpumask_next() would trigger one of the assertions in the 4th patch in
this series without this fix. The 4th patch is a way to demonstrate (if
we apply it without the rest) the problem of using cpu0's
thread_info->cpu uninitialized.
Can you please add a commit message explaining how you found
this bug?
Yes I'll do that.
Thanks,
Nikos
Thanks,
drew
