On Friday 06 April 2007, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
> > The reason the timer could have been active at that point, before applying
> > this patch, is that we try to dispatch a new request after handling one.
> > The new request will then have its own expiry timer, along with a handler.
> > Since before this patch ide_timer_expiry() only looked at whether or not
> > a handler was present, it would incorrectly think the request had not been
> > handled already, and incorrectly tried to restart the timer.
>
> Hm, I'm still not sure why this happens at all, probably need to try
> reproducing it (unless you post a stack trace :-).
not a stack trace but should explain the issue a bit:
...
ide_timer_expiry
-> just before taking ide_lock IRQ happens
...
ide_intr
-> completes the command and queues the next one
...
ide_timer_expiry (resumed)
-> takes ide_lock
-> the bug happens ;)
should be even easier to trigger it on SMP since ide_timer_expiry
may be running at the same time as ide_intr
Bart
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
