The recently added code to use rbtrees in sysctl did not follow the proper rbtree interface on insertion - it was calling rb_link_node() which inserts a new node into the binary tree, but missed the call to rb_insert_color() which properly balances the rbtree and establishes all expected rbtree invariants. I found out about this only because faulty commit also used rb_init_node(), which I am removing within this patchset. But I think it's an easy mistake to make, and it makes me wonder if we should change the rbtree API so that insertions would be done with a single rb_insert() call (even if its implementation could still inline the rb_link_node() part and call a private __rb_insert_color function to do the rebalancing). Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c index 33aea86..77602c1a 100644 --- a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c +++ b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c @@ -142,6 +142,7 @@ static int insert_entry(struct ctl_table_header *head, struct ctl_table *entry) } rb_link_node(node, parent, p); + rb_insert_color(node, &head->parent->root); return 0; } -- 1.7.7.3 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>