On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 14:34 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 03:27:26PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > disable_irq() and enable_irq() are really really evil. Are you sure you
> > need these? To me on first sight it looks like a bug (think of shared
> > interrupts for example), can you explain what you are trying to achieve
> > with these?
>
> We're talking to the hardware directly. There's a potential race where
> the BIOS will try to access the cmos at the same time, with potentially
> interesting results (We set the address we want to read with the outb.
> The BIOS runs, outbs its own address, and then reads. We then read from
> the address the BIOS was looking at, rather than what we were looking
> at).
.. and just disabling interrupts isn't going to work? Ok sure there is
an SMP issue, but a spinlock ought to be able to fix that properly,
instead of something this evil....
-
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]
