Am Mittwoch, 22. Dezember 2004 03:25 schrieb Pete Zaitcev:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:25:52 +0100, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Am Montag, 20. Dezember 2004 08:04 schrieb Pete Zaitcev:
> > > + memcpy(&mbus->shim_ops, ubus->op,
> > > sizeof(struct usb_operations));
> > > + mbus->shim_ops.submit_urb = mon_submit;
> > > + mbus->saved_op = ubus->op;
> > > + ubus->op = &mbus->shim_ops;
> > > + ubus->monitored = 1;
> >
> > I think you need smp_wmb() here to make sure that an irq taken
> > on another CPU sees the manipulations in the correct order.
>
> Hmm, it seems you are right. I forgot about reordering issues. I relied on
> op being atomic, but if it points at an uninitialized shim, this will end
> badly. How about this?
>
> memcpy(&mbus->shim_ops, ubus->op, sizeof(struct
> usb_operations));
> mbus->shim_ops.submit_urb = mon_submit;
> mbus->saved_op = ubus->op;
> smp_mb(); /* ubus->op is not protected by spinlocks */
smp_wmb() would do.
> ubus->op = &mbus->shim_ops;
> ubus->monitored = 1;
>
> Generally, the type of coding which requires a use of memory barriers in
> drivers
> is a bug or a latent bug, so I am sorry for the above. It was a sacrifice to
> make usbmon invisible if it's not actively monitoring. Sorry about that.
That is the best way. It's just a little tricky.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
