On Mon, 26 Aug 2019, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:09:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > @@ -884,7 +888,7 @@ static void check_process_timers(struct
> > struct list_head *firing)
> > {
> > struct signal_struct *const sig = tsk->signal;
> > - struct list_head *timers = sig->posix_cputimers.cpu_timers;
> > + struct posix_cputimer_base *base = sig->posix_cputimers.bases;
> > u64 utime, ptime, virt_expires, prof_expires;
> > u64 sum_sched_runtime, sched_expires;
> > struct task_cputime cputime;
> > @@ -912,9 +916,12 @@ static void check_process_timers(struct
> > ptime = utime + cputime.stime;
> > sum_sched_runtime = cputime.sum_exec_runtime;
> >
> > - prof_expires = check_timers_list(timers, firing, ptime);
> > - virt_expires = check_timers_list(++timers, firing, utime);
> > - sched_expires = check_timers_list(++timers, firing, sum_sched_runtime);
> > + prof_expires = check_timers_list(&base[CPUCLOCK_PROF].cpu_timers,
> > + firing, ptime);
> > + virt_expires = check_timers_list(&base[CPUCLOCK_VIRT].cpu_timers,
> > + firing, utime);
> > + sched_expires = check_timers_list(&base[CLPCLOCK_SCHED].cpu_timers,
>
> ^^
> 0-day bot should have warned by now.
It didn't but my own testing found it and I fixed it locally already
