From 416be7a1c6d7904449dcb661b6e889525ff71096 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Konstantin Belousov Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:51:09 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Fix assertion, &uc->uc_busy is never zero, the intent is to test the uc_busy value, and not its address [1]. Remove the single use of the macro, write KASSERT() explicitely in the code of umtxq_sleep_pi(). Submitted by: Eric van Gyzen [1] MFC after: 1 week --- sys/kern/kern_umtx.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/sys/kern/kern_umtx.c b/sys/kern/kern_umtx.c index 33fdf71e5ebe..5b42c6fd118a 100644 --- a/sys/kern/kern_umtx.c +++ b/sys/kern/kern_umtx.c @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@ struct umtxq_chain { }; #define UMTXQ_LOCKED_ASSERT(uc) mtx_assert(&(uc)->uc_lock, MA_OWNED) -#define UMTXQ_BUSY_ASSERT(uc) KASSERT(&(uc)->uc_busy, ("umtx chain is not busy")) /* * Don't propagate time-sharing priority, there is a security reason, @@ -1478,7 +1477,7 @@ umtxq_sleep_pi(struct umtx_q *uq, struct umtx_pi *pi, KASSERT(td == curthread, ("inconsistent uq_thread")); uc = umtxq_getchain(&uq->uq_key); UMTXQ_LOCKED_ASSERT(uc); - UMTXQ_BUSY_ASSERT(uc); + KASSERT(uc->uc_busy != 0, ("umtx chain is not busy")); umtxq_insert(uq); mtx_lock_spin(&umtx_lock); if (pi->pi_owner == NULL) {