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 <wal...@google.com>
---
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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
