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 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]
