> ACK for the ACPI changes (and CCing Tony and Boris for the heads-up as they
> are way more famailiar with the APEI code than I am).
Sure. If kvfree() really is smart enough to figure it out then there
it no point in the if (blah) kfree() else vfree().
The drivers/acpi/apei/erst.c code isn't doi
>> static inline void wait_for_init_deassert(atomic_t *deassert)
>> {
>> -while (!atomic_read(deassert));
>> +while (!atomic_read(deassert))
>> +cpu_relax();
>> return;
>> }
>
> For less-than-briliant people like me, it's totally non-obvious that
> cpu_relax() is needed
>> 6674: while (atomic_read(&j->DSPWrite) > 0)
>> 6675- atomic_dec(&j->DSPWrite);
>
> If the maintainer of this code doesn't see a compelling reason to add
> cpu_relax() in this loop, then it should be patched.
Shouldn't it be just re-written without the loop:
if ((tmp = atom
> Here are the functions in which they occur in the object file. You
> may have to chase down some inlining to find the function that
> actually uses atomic_*().
Ignore this ... Andreas' patch was only two lines so I
thought I'd "save time" by just hand-editing the source over
on my build machine.
> Possibly. Either that or we've uncovered some latent bugs. Maybe a
> combination of the two. Can you list those 19 changes so we can
evaluate them?
Here are the functions in which they occur in the object file. You
may have to chase down some inlining to find the function that
actually uses
> Use atomic64_read to read an atomic64_t.
Thanks Andreas!
Chris: This bug is why the 8-byte loads got changed to 4-byte + sign-extend
by your change to atomic_read().
With this applied together with shuffling the volatile from the
declaration to the usage (in both atomic_read() and atomic_set()
> That's distressing. I'm about to resubmit with a volatile cast in
> atomic_set as well, since people expect that behavior and I've been
> shown a legitimate case where it could matter. Does the assembly look
> right with that cast in atomic_set() as well?
No. With the casts to volatile in
> +#define atomic_read(v) (*(volatile __s32 *)&(v)->counter)
> +#define atomic64_read(v) (*(volatile __s64 *)&(v)->counter)
>
> #define atomic_set(v,i) (((v)->counter) = (i))
> #define atomic64_set(v,i)(((v)->counter) = (i))
Losing the volatile from the "set"
> > Caused-By : Thomas Renninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > commit 29b71a1ca74491fab9fed09e9d835d840d042690
> A patch was sent to Tony. AFAIK it got accepted, not sure whether it
> already is in any and which git tree...
The suggested patch adds manual padding to the acpi_dev
