[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZQGbaXTnIk0NIZbK@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:22:17 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@...rayinc.com>
Cc: Jan Bottorff <janb@...amperecomputing.com>,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Jan Dabros <jsd@...ihalf.com>,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: designware: Fix corrupted memory seen in the ISR
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:04:00AM +0200, Yann Sionneau wrote:
> On 13/09/2023 03:03, Jan Bottorff wrote:
...
> > + /*
> > + * To guarantee data written by the current core is visible to
> > + * all cores, a write barrier is required. This needs to be
> > + * before an interrupt causes execution on another core.
> > + * For ARM processors, this needs to be a DSB barrier.
> > + */
> > + wmb();
>
> Apart from the commit message it looks good to me.
>
> If I understand correctly without this wmb() it is possible that the writes
> to dev->msg_write_idx , dev->msg_read_idx = 0 etc would not yet be visible
> to another CPU running the ISR handler right after enabling those.
If this is the case, shouldn't we rather use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() where
appropriate?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists