Donald Becker wrote:
>
> > > However, natsemi.c's spinlock needs to be retained, and
> > > extended into start_tx(), because this driver has
> > > a race which has cropped up in a few others:
> > > ...
> > > if (np->cur_tx - np->dirty_tx >= TX_QUEUE_LEN - 1) {
> > > /*
Donald Becker wrote:
However, natsemi.c's spinlock needs to be retained, and
extended into start_tx(), because this driver has
a race which has cropped up in a few others:
...
if (np-cur_tx - np-dirty_tx = TX_QUEUE_LEN - 1) {
/* WINDOW HERE */
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Manfred wrote:
> > > Hi Jeff, Tjeerd,
> > > I spotted the spin_lock in natsemi.c, and I think it's bogus.
> > >
> > > The "simultaneous interrupt entry" is a bug in some 2.0 and 2.1 kernel
> > > (even Alan didn't remember it
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Manfred wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jeff, Tjeerd,
> >
> > I spotted the spin_lock in natsemi.c, and I think it's bogus.
> >
> > The "simultaneous interrupt entry" is a bug in some 2.0 and 2.1 kernel
> > (even Alan didn't remember it exactly when I asked him), thus a sane
> >
Andrew Morton wrote:
Manfred wrote:
Hi Jeff, Tjeerd,
I spotted the spin_lock in natsemi.c, and I think it's bogus.
The "simultaneous interrupt entry" is a bug in some 2.0 and 2.1 kernel
(even Alan didn't remember it exactly when I asked him), thus a sane
driver can assume that
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Manfred wrote:
Hi Jeff, Tjeerd,
I spotted the spin_lock in natsemi.c, and I think it's bogus.
The "simultaneous interrupt entry" is a bug in some 2.0 and 2.1 kernel
(even Alan didn't remember it exactly when I asked
6 matches
Mail list logo
