3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------ From: Darren Hart <dvh...@linux.intel.com> commit f27071cb7fe3e1d37a9dbe6c0dfc5395cd40fa43 upstream. The WARN_ON in futex_wait_requeue_pi() for a NULL q.pi_state was testing the address (&q.pi_state) of the pointer instead of the value (q.pi_state) of the pointer. Correct it accordingly. Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvh...@linux.intel.com> Cc: Dave Jones <da...@redhat.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1c85d97f6e5f79ec389a4ead3e367363c74bd09a.1342809673.git.dvh...@linux.intel.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> --- kernel/futex.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c index 05018bf..5551ada 100644 --- a/kernel/futex.c +++ b/kernel/futex.c @@ -2343,7 +2343,7 @@ static int futex_wait_requeue_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags, * signal. futex_unlock_pi() will not destroy the lock_ptr nor * the pi_state. */ - WARN_ON(!&q.pi_state); + WARN_ON(!q.pi_state); pi_mutex = &q.pi_state->pi_mutex; ret = rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(pi_mutex, to, &rt_waiter, 1); debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter(&rt_waiter); -- 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/
