Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:03:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:03:08 -0500 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:34250 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:02:59 -0500 To: Alan Cox Cc: jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com (Jeff Garzik), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] IBM Lanstreamer bugfixes X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Kent E Yoder" Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:02:57 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D04NM109/04/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9 |November 16, 2001) at 01/18/2002 06:02:58 PM, Serialize complete at 01/18/2002 06:02:58 PM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > >> For #6, the udelay(1) had more to do with the following write() than >> with spin_lock(). When that delay was not there, the write failed >> randomly. The same with the udelay(10) at the end of the interrupt >> function... > >That smells of covering up a race rather than fixing something. Another >thing you may be doing perhaps is hiding PCI posting effects ? Ok, I thought of one thing that might make things clearer here: when I say "the write failed", I mean that we saw the write go out on the PCI bus and then the box locked up. We were looking at it on a PCI bus analyzer. That, and it wasn't just this write, or just writes in general, it really seemed random. BTW, I don't know what PCI posting effects are... Kent - 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/