From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:44:12 +1100
> 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 ? Although I couldn't find a problematic case with any current in-tree drivers, it's better to be safe than sorry :-) So I'll add a smp_mb__before_clear_bit() to netif_poll_enable() :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
