Re: udelay() & preemption & drifty ITCs

From: Jesse Barnes <>
Date: 2003-11-25 08:13:05
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 01:00:43PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 02:39:29PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > Yep, it appears so.  I guess we need a 'preempt_disable/disable()' pair
> > around the itc access.  Of course, callers under a spinlock are already
> > protected, so maybe exposure to this problem isn't that large?
> Here's the patch.  Compiles and boots, but I haven't made a test module
> that illustrates this bug, so I haven't tested it.

Ugg, where did I keep my brown paper bags?  Ignore this patch, I'll post
another in a minute.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Mon Nov 24 16:22:14 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:20 EST