> -----Original Message----- > From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev- > bounces+mihai.caraman=freescale....@lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Scott > Wood > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 12:45 AM > To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/e6500: hw tablewalk: fix recursive tlb lock > on cpu 0 > > Commit 82d86de25b9c99db546e17c6f7ebf9a691da557e "TLB lock recursive" > introduced a bug whereby cpu 0 uses the same value for "lock held" as > is used to indicate that the lock is free.
Isn't his what spin lock implementation solves by combines paca_index with lock_token? Can't we have a common approach? > Add one to the CPU value to ensure we do not use zero as a "lock held" > value. The CPU value is loaded in r10 from tlb_miss_common_e6500. "TLB lock recursive" commit also introduced this misleading comment: We are entered with: r10 = cpu number -Mike _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev