For anything except hardware registers, I'm used to seeing devices specified so that there's never a need to have the driver and the hardware modify the same word of memory concurrently. (And even for most hardware registers, too.)
Are you saying UHCI expects that? Or is it just a driver issue, where you've chosen a structure that depends sub-word concurrent access rather than one that doesn't? - Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johannes Erdfelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: PATCH 2.5.14 -- uhci, compiler warnings > On Thu, May 09, 2002, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We use clear_bit and set_bit because it's atomic and makes sure we don't > > > race with the HC updating the same data. > > > > If the HC is updating the same data, it'd seem like such > > races have been a longstanding risk. > > They would still be races if clear_bit and set_bit weren't atomic, but > since they are (atleast on SMP kernels). It's a Read-Modify-Write race. > > JE > _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
