[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1166586252.19254.118.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:44:12 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: netif_poll_enable() & barrier
Hi !
I stumbled accross what might be a bug on out of order architecture:
netif_poll_enable() only does a clear_bit(). However,
netif_poll_disable/enable pairs are often used as simili-spinlocks.
(netif_poll_enable() has pretty much spin_lock semantics except that it
schedules instead of looping).
Thus, shouldn't netif_poll_disable() do an smp_wmb(); before clearing
the bit to make sure that any stores done within the poll-disabled
section are properly visible to the rest of the system before clearing
the bit ?
Cheers,
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists