On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 09:18 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:38:38 +0100 > Wolfgang Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 27 February 2006 17:00, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > 2.6.16-rc5 with disable_msi=1 works for me, no hangs seen so far. I rsynced > > 80 > > GB of data, thats about 5-10 times more than I typically need to reproduce > > a > > hang, so it seems to be solid. For the record: 2.6.16-rc5 with > > disable_msi=0 > > does hang. > > > > I have not seen the memory trashing others reported, with no version I > > tested > > so far. Maybe my scenario is not likely to trigger this, so I can't tell. > > > > Unless a fix for msi is at hand, may I suggest for 2.6.16 to revert the msi > > commit or switch the default to disable_msi=1? > > > > I've updated bugzilla #6084 accordingly. > > Okay, then what I need is lspci -v of all systems that have the problem, I'll > make > a blacklist (or update PCI quirks). I suspect that MSI doesn't work for any > devices > on these systems, or MSI changes the timing enough to expose existing races.
Am i just tired from trying to make XSLT to do something unnatural or is
there something odd going on in msi.c?
static void msi_set_mask_bit(unsigned int vector, int flag)
{
struct msi_desc *entry;
entry = (struct msi_desc *)msi_desc[vector];
if (!entry || !entry->dev || !entry->mask_base)
return;
switch (entry->msi_attrib.type) {
case PCI_CAP_ID_MSI:
{
int pos; <==
u32 mask_bits;
pos = (long)entry->mask_base; <==
...
Doesn't that mean that we, a: read 64 bit from memory. b: save it in a
32 bit area?
(esp since it seems to be a address pointer, which could also be using
higher memory areas... but then i dunno what a void __iomem * is, but i
assume that it will be 64 bits here =))
--
Ian Kumlien <pomac () vapor ! com> -- http://pomac.netswarm.net
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
