From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, bcrl@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch 7/8] lock validator: fix ns83820.c irq-flags bug
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 09:12:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <448C40E1.8080705@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <448C4021.80102@garzik.org>
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> The driver's locking is definitely wrong, but I don't think this is
>>> the fix,
>>
>> it's an obvious correct fix in the correctness sense though...
>>
>>>
>>> Jesus, the locking here is awful. No wonder there are bugs.
>>
>>
>> ... which given that fact, is for 2.6.17 probably the right thing,
>> pending
>> a nicer fix for 2.6.18
>
> I disagree, the patch is wrong too.
wrong as in "not quite optimal", not wrong as in "buggy".
> For normal PCI hardware, the in-ISR paths should all use spin_lock(),
only for per hardware locks obviously, not for per driver locks ;)
you are right that it's a lot nicer to do what you describe. No argument
from me on that part. But to call it "wrong" or "incorrect" is not quite
ok. In terms of changing/fixing the approach we did was the simplest one.
Not the "make it look nice" one. Fix it by making the bug go away in the light
of a LOT of fishy locking.
You can demand that we first fix all the fishy locking first, and I can even
in part agree with that, but for -stable and 2.6.17 that is obviously out
of scope while a simple "make the bug go away" fix is not.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-11 16:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200606090519.k595JmDG032032@shell0.pdx.osdl.net>
2006-06-11 14:55 ` [patch 7/8] lock validator: fix ns83820.c irq-flags bug Jeff Garzik
2006-06-11 15:00 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-11 16:09 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-06-11 16:12 ` Arjan van de Ven [this message]
2006-06-11 17:01 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-06-11 17:02 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-11 20:28 ` Benjamin LaHaise
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=448C40E1.8080705@linux.intel.com \
--to=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bcrl@kvack.org \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).