On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 16:35 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 17:05 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Dear RT Folks, > > > > > > I'm pleased to announce the 3.6.9-rt21 release. 3.6.7-rt18, 3.6.8-rt19 > > > and 3.6.9-rt20 are not announced updates to the respective 3.6.y > > > stable releases without any RT changes > > > > > > Changes since 3.6.9-rt20: > > > > > > * Fix the PREEMPT_LAZY implementation on ARM > > > > > > * Fix the RCUTINY issues > > > > > > * Fix a long standing scheduler bug (See commit log of > > > sched-enqueue-to-head.patch) > > > > That last has an oversight buglet. > > > > sched: add missing userspace->kernel struct sched_param.sched_priority inversion > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > > @@ -4624,7 +4624,7 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct t > > p->sched_reset_on_fork = reset_on_fork; > > > > oldprio = p->prio; > > - if (oldprio == param->sched_priority) > > + if (oldprio == (MAX_RT_PRIO - 1) - param->sched_priority) > > goto out; > > > > on_rq = p->on_rq; > > Duh, yes. But there is another one here: > > + enqueue_task(rq, p, oldprio < param->sched_priority ? > + ENQUEUE_HEAD : 0); > > Bah. This reverse user/kernel priority nonsense really should go away! Snort, I looked right at it too, looked perfectly fine :) -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
