On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 01:31:43AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
