lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] IBM Lanstreamer bugfixes
From
Date
>
>> 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.062 / U:1.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site