On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 09:10:26PM -0500, Steven J. Hill wrote: > Dale Farnsworth wrote: > > > > You have replaced the use of the global PHY spinlock with a per-port > > spinlock. > > However, the SMI register is shared by all ports. The global lock is > > needed to prevent simultaneous updates of the register by drivers for > > multiple ports. > > > > NAK > > > Are you sure? Notice that a majority of the spinlocks were changed to disable > IRQs. Secondly, the lowest level mv_read/mv_write functions have to acquire > the big mv64x60_lock before they can read or write registers. I see the PHY > spinlock as being an additional and unnecessary lock to contend with. Am I > make an improper assumption?
I'm sure. (Of course, I could be wrong.) On an SMP (or fully preemptive) system, disabling IRQs doesn't provide sufficient protection. Nor does a per-port spinlock, since multiple ports share the single register. It seems to me that a driver-scope lock is required. -Dale - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
