Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] IBM Lanstreamer bugfixes | From | "Kent E Yoder" <> | Date | Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:02:57 -0600 |
| |
> >> For #6, the udelay(1) had more to do with the following write() than >> with spin_lock(). When that delay was not there, the write failed >> randomly. The same with the udelay(10) at the end of the interrupt >> function... > >That smells of covering up a race rather than fixing something. Another >thing you may be doing perhaps is hiding PCI posting effects ?
Ok, I thought of one thing that might make things clearer here: when I say "the write failed", I mean that we saw the write go out on the PCI bus and then the box locked up. We were looking at it on a PCI bus analyzer. That, and it wasn't just this write, or just writes in general, it really seemed random.
BTW, I don't know what PCI posting effects are...
Kent
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |