On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:49:24 +0100 David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Fix __wait_on_atomic_t() so that it calls the action func if the counter != 0 > rather than if the counter is 0 so as to be analogous to __wait_on_bit(). > > Thanks to Yacine who found this by visual inspection. > > This will affect FS-Cache in that it will could fail to sleep correctly when > trying to clean up after a netfs cookie is withdrawn. > > Reported-by: Yacine Belkadi <yacine.belkadi.1@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> > cc: Yacine Belkadi <yacine.belkadi.1@xxxxxxxxx> > cc: Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx> > cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > kernel/wait.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/wait.c b/kernel/wait.c > index ce0daa3..dec68bd 100644 > --- a/kernel/wait.c > +++ b/kernel/wait.c > @@ -333,7 +333,8 @@ int __wait_on_atomic_t(wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct wait_bit_queue *q, > prepare_to_wait(wq, &q->wait, mode); > val = q->key.flags; > if (atomic_read(val) == 0) > - ret = (*action)(val); > + break; > + ret = (*action)(val); > } while (!ret && atomic_read(val) != 0); nit: can you now eliminate the check for "val" in the while condition? It doesn't look like it harms anything, but eliminating it would probably simplify the code slightly... > finish_wait(wq, &q->wait); > return ret; > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
