Re: alpha: potential race around hae_cache in RESTORE_ALL

[Al Viro]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:58:28AM +0400, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 08:25:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > BTW, am I right assuming that HAE modifications is UP-only thing?  It would
> > be obviously b0rken on any SMP box, since alpha_mv is not per-CPU thing...
> 
> The only SMP system that does HAE modifications at runtime is T2, so it has
> a spinlock protection around set_hae() - see core_t2.h. Others are either
> limited to use HAE window 0 only, or do not have HAE hardware at all.

Um?  Pardon me, but that makes no sense; how would a spinlock taken in
e.g. readl() stop another process from leaving a syscall, getting to
RESTORE_ALL and overwriting HAE register while we are halfway through
the spinlock-protected area?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/