tick_check_replacement() returns if a replacement of clock_event_device is
possible or not. It does this as the first check:
if (tick_check_percpu(curdev, newdev, smp_processor_id()))
return false;
This looks wrong as we are returning false when tick_check_percpu() cpu returned
true. Probably Thomas forgot '!' here in his commit: 03e13cf5e ?
Fix it by placing a '!' before tick_check_percpu().
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
---
kernel/time/tick-common.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-common.c b/kernel/time/tick-common.c
index 395cbbd..8650026 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-common.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-common.c
@@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static bool tick_check_preferred(struct clock_event_device
*curdev,
bool tick_check_replacement(struct clock_event_device *curdev,
struct clock_event_device *newdev)
{
- if (tick_check_percpu(curdev, newdev, smp_processor_id()))
+ if (!tick_check_percpu(curdev, newdev, smp_processor_id()))
return false;
return tick_check_preferred(curdev, newdev);
--
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e
--
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/
