Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:47:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:47:42 -0500 Received: from mail.pha.ha-vel.cz ([195.39.72.3]:20243 "HELO mail.pha.ha-vel.cz") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:47:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:48:05 +0100 From: Vojtech Pavlik To: Alan Cox Cc: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.13-ac4 Message-ID: <20011029184805.A4504@suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20011029084736.A3152@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 10:56:35AM +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 10:56:35AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > bytes read from the 8254 get swapped. I've got some indirect evidence > > that this also could happen with the original i8254. > > Im hoping not. That would imply we interrupted someone half way through > reading the counter which means the locking is screwed up. > > > By the way, if we made the 8254 accesses (spinlock?) protected (which > > should be done anyway, right now definitely more than one CPU can access > > the registers at once), I think we could remove the outb(0, 0x43);, > > saving some cycles. > > Some chipsets need the outb I'm looking at how to cleanly fix the timer accesses. And I think a common inline function that does the lock outb inb inb check - via, other bugs unlock would make sense. What do you think? -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/