Re: [PATCH] cfs: NULL pointer check

[Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>]

On 09/16/11 10:48, Wang Xingchao wrote:
> se maybe NULL if cfs_rq->rb_leftmost is NULL

nack, it had better not be; otherwise we've got a corrupt tree!

Also, this diff is against the previous -- please bundle dependent 
patches as a series in the future.

Thanks,

- Paul


>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Xingchao<xingchao.wang@intel.com>
> ---
>   kernel/sched_fair.c |    4 ++++
>   1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> index fef0bfd..109b232 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -1130,6 +1130,10 @@ check_preempt_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
>   		return;
>
>   	se = __pick_first_entity(cfs_rq);
> +
> +	if (!se)
> +		return;
> +
>   	delta = curr->vruntime - se->vruntime;
>
>   	if (delta<  0)