On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 01:14:32AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:05:07PM -0700, Pering, Trevor wrote: > > Hello -- this is a re-post of an earlier problem from last week I'm still > > working on. > > The problem is consistent_alloc(). When it was written, it didn't need > to handle allocations from interrupts. However, the spec changed, and > it does now. However, calling it from interrupt context is currently > completely unsafe, and "stuff" needs to be rewritten to support it. > (where "stuff" is more code than just consistent.c) > > We basically need to end up allocating and manipulating page tables > from IRQ context without trampling on what vmalloc is doing. > > It's something on my to do list; it's a large amount of work, and it's > just not high priority for me currently.
Since PPC gets hit by this too sometimes (And we adapted what ARM did in this case) it's something we've talked about as well. Take a look at: http://lists.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-embedded/200206/msg00238.html (Beware, this is a long thread) and in particular the part around http://lists.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-embedded/200206/msg00251.html. What should be an appropriate fix is detailed all in there (and if you get on the bit about creating consistent_alloc for cache-coherent procs you've made a wrong turn in the thread :)). I'm not sure what Dave M has said about it tho. But if someone needs to have this working for them right now, this shoudl tell you what you need. :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Stuff, things, and much much more. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
