Jorge Nerin wrote:
>
> Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Well, I have tried it with 2.4.0-test10, both SMP and non-SMP, and the
> > > result is a little confusing.
> > >
> > > Under SMP a ping -s 5 -f other_host takes down the network access
> > > with no messages (ne2k-pci), and no possi
Hi,
I have to own up and say that it was me :-) you'll see that DECnet is the
only protocol to use these macros at the moment. I'm sure though that I
only copied what IPv4 was doing at the time, along with the hints I had
from yourself and Dave,
Steve.
>
> Hello!
>
> > Alexey! Even someone u
Hello!
> Alexey! Even someone understood all this already, look
> to include/net/sock.h SOCK_SLEEP_{PRE,POST} macros :-)
>
> I will compose a patch to fix all this.
O! But who was this wiseman? 8)
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
Hello!
> > In any case, Andrew, where is the race, when we enter in sleeping state?
> > Wakeup is not lost, it is just not required when we are not going
> > to schedule and force task to running state.
>
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> add_wait_queue(...);
> /* wind
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> > No, that code is correct, provided (current->state == TASK_RUNNING)
> > on entry. If it isn't, there's a race window which can cause
> > lost wakeups. As a check you could add:
> >
> > if ((current->state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE|TASK_UNINTERRUPTIB
Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, I have tried it with 2.4.0-test10, both SMP and non-SMP, and the
> > result is a little confusing.
> >
> > Under SMP a ping -s 5 -f other_host takes down the network access
> > with no messages (ne2k-pci), and no possibility of being restored
> > without
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> > No, that code is correct, provided (current->state == TASK_RUNNING)
> > on entry. If it isn't, there's a race window which can cause
> > lost wakeups. As a check you could add:
> >
> > if ((current->state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE|TASK_UNINTERRUPTIB
Hello!
> No, that code is correct, provided (current->state == TASK_RUNNING)
> on entry. If it isn't, there's a race window which can cause
> lost wakeups. As a check you could add:
>
> if ((current->state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE|TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)) == 0)
> BUG();
Though
Hello!
> if ((current->state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE|TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE))
> == 0)
> BUG();
The Puzzle... 8) It is truly impossible.
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Jorge Nerin wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > So I think that it could be a little window near sock_wait_for_wmem that
> > could be SMP insecure wich is affecting me.
> >
> > The code of sock_wait_for_wmem in 2.4.0-test10 is this:
> >
> > static long sock_wait_for_wmem(struct sock *
>
> Well, I have tried it with 2.4.0-test10, both SMP and non-SMP, and the
> result is a little confusing.
>
> Under SMP a ping -s 5 -f other_host takes down the network access
> with no messages (ne2k-pci), and no possibility of being restored
> without a reboot.
>
> Under UP the same comm
Jorge Nerin wrote:
>
> ...
> So I think that it could be a little window near sock_wait_for_wmem that
> could be SMP insecure wich is affecting me.
>
> The code of sock_wait_for_wmem in 2.4.0-test10 is this:
>
> static long sock_wait_for_wmem(struct sock * sk, long timeo)
> {
> DECLARE_
Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>
> Jorge Nerin wrote:
>
> >
> > Ok, I reported it several times, but it gets ignored. I have a Realtek
> > 8029 (ne2k-pci), and with both drivers ne and ne2k-pci I can easily get
> > it stuck by doing a ping -f to a host in the local net, and sometimes it
> > happens doing
Paul,
Ok, here's what I have. Included are your changes, as well as
drivers/net/ne.c:
* use probe_irq_on/off instead of autoirq_xxx (autoirq is going away)
* request_region first thing in ne_probe1, before any hardware
interaction takes place. Eliminates any potential resource races. Also
eli
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > There is no urgency in trying to squeeze a patch like this in the back
> > > door of a 2.4.0 release. For example, there are people out there now
> > > who are using the ne.c driver to run both ISA and
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > There is no urgency in trying to squeeze a patch like this in the back
> > door of a 2.4.0 release. For example, there are people out there now
> > who are using the ne.c driver to run both ISA and PCI cards in the same
> > box without having to u
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > This change sounds ok to me, if noone else objects. (I added to the CC
> > a bit) I saw that code, and was thinking about doing the same thing
> > myself. ne2k-pci.c definitely has changes which are not included in
> > ne.c, and it seems silly to duplicate ne2000 PCI supp
Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> There is no urgency in trying to squeeze a patch like this in the back
> door of a 2.4.0 release. For example, there are people out there now
> who are using the ne.c driver to run both ISA and PCI cards in the same
> box without having to use 2 different drivers. We can
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> There is no urgency in trying to squeeze a patch like this in the back
> door of a 2.4.0 release. For example, there are people out there now
> who are using the ne.c driver to run both ISA and PCI cards in the same
> box without having to use 2 di
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> pavel rabel wrote:
> > help. So I removed PCI code from ne.c to have ISA only driver. It
>
> This change sounds ok to me, if noone else objects. (I added to the CC
> a bit) I saw that code, and was thinking about doing the same thing
> myself. ne2k-pci.c definitely has
> This change sounds ok to me, if noone else objects. (I added to the CC
> a bit) I saw that code, and was thinking about doing the same thing
> myself. ne2k-pci.c definitely has changes which are not included in
> ne.c, and it seems silly to duplicate ne2000 PCI support.
Unless there are any
pavel rabel wrote:
> There are three drivers for n2k cards. One is MCA only, one is PCI only,
> and the then the third one (ne.c) is both ISA and PCI. I think the ISA
> driver should be ISA only, as is described in Documentation and in config
> help. So I removed PCI code from ne.c to have ISA onl
22 matches
Mail list logo
