[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <562d0c45d5a10d80c3583c2fe1c318c7.squirrel@www.firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:12:23 +0200
From: "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: "Wu Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"Kenneth" <liguozhu@...wei.com>, greg@...ah.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Naoya Horiguchi" <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
"linux-mm" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Problem with debugfs
>
> Thanks for the report. Did this show up as a real bug? What's your
> use case? Or is it a theoretic concern raised when doing code review?
I assume it was code review, right?
> Yeah the hwpoison_filter_flags_* values are not referenced strictly
> safe to concurrent updates. I didn't care it because the typical usage
> is for hwpoison test tools to _first_ echo hwpoison_filter_flags_*
> values into the debugfs and _then_ start injecting hwpoison errors.
> Otherwise you cannot get reliable test results. The updated value is
> guaranteed to be visible because there are file mutex UNLOCK and page
> LOCK operations in between.
Sorry that's not true -- all the x86 memory ordering constraints only
apply to a single CPU or same address.
But I agree it doesn't really matter for a debugging feature
like this.
So unless there's a very simple fix I would be inclined to leave
it alone, perhaps with a comment added. Comments?
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists