Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:22:03 +0100 | From | Heiko Carstens <> | Subject | Re: [S390] cio: fix stsch_reset. |
| |
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 01:31:43AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > In-Reply-To: <20061228103925.GB6270@skybase> > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:39:25 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > > @@ -881,10 +880,18 @@ static void cio_reset_pgm_check_handler( > > static int stsch_reset(struct subchannel_id schid, volatile struct schib *addr) > > { > > int rc; > > + register struct subchannel_id reg1 asm ("1") = schid; > > > > pgm_check_occured = 0; > > s390_reset_pgm_handler = cio_reset_pgm_check_handler; > > - rc = stsch(schid, addr); > > + > > + asm volatile( > > + " stsch 0(%2)\n" > > + " ipm %0\n" > > + " srl %0,28" > > + : "=d" (rc) > > + : "d" (reg1), "a" (addr), "m" (*addr) : "memory", "cc"); > > + > > s390_reset_pgm_handler = NULL; > > if (pgm_check_occured) > > return -EIO; > > > Can't you just put a barrier() before the stsch() call?
Yes, that would work too and would look much nicer.
I think we should change the reset program check handler, so that it searches the exception tables. At least for in-kernel addresses that should work. For addresses within modules this might cause deadlocks, since the module code takes spinlocks and we are in a context where we just killed all cpus not knowing what they executed... Hmm.. - 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/
| |