Hey,
After some discussion with Steve, this is a respin with changelogs and
comments sanitized. The code itself hasn't changed.
Thanks.
Frederic Weisbecker (2):
irq_work: Fix racy IRQ_WORK_BUSY flag setting
irq_work: Fix racy check on work pending flag
kernel/irq_work.c | 21
2012/10/30 Steven Rostedt :
> On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 17:25 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
>> No I was worried about the cpu_relax() in irq_work_sync()
>
> That one is fine too, as this is the purpose of cpu_relax(). Not only to
> relax the cpu, but also to tell gcc that the loop needs to be rer
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 17:25 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> No I was worried about the cpu_relax() in irq_work_sync()
That one is fine too, as this is the purpose of cpu_relax(). Not only to
relax the cpu, but also to tell gcc that the loop needs to be reread.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe fr
2012/10/30 Steven Rostedt :
> On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 16:34 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> Hi,
>
>> And I still wonder if cpu_relax() is enough to prevent the compiler
>> from correctly reloading work->flags in irq_work_sync() loop.
>> Do we need ACCESS_ONCE()?
>
> You mean this loop:
>
>
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 16:34 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Hi,
> And I still wonder if cpu_relax() is enough to prevent the compiler
> from correctly reloading work->flags in irq_work_sync() loop.
> Do we need ACCESS_ONCE()?
You mean this loop:
flags = work->flags & ~IRQ_WORK_PENDING
Hi,
The first patch is extracted from my printk patches, with changelog
reworked. The second patch is an addition.
And I still wonder if cpu_relax() is enough to prevent the compiler
from correctly reloading work->flags in irq_work_sync() loop.
Do we need ACCESS_ONCE()?
Thanks.
Frederic Weisbec
6 matches
Mail list logo
