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.
