Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately

Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[email protected]>:
> I think that is actually a very minor bug you've found.  If someone
> were posting a work request at the same time as they transitioned a QP
> to reset (which is a legitimate if not sensible thing to do), then the
> spinlock could get reinitialized while it was held.  Which would be
> bad.

I think you can't post work requests to a QP in reset state, since IB spec
forbids this. If you do, it seems bad things will happen anyway, for example
head/tail pointers may get out of sync as mthca_wq_init clears these.

-- 
MST
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately
    • From: Roland Dreier <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 01/15] dm: support ioctls on mapped devices
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] 8250 UART backup timer
• Previous by thread: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately
• Next by thread: [RFC] change netdevice to use struct device instead of struct class_device
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]