Re: esi-support (2nd take)

From: David Mosberger-Tang <>
Date: 2006-06-17 01:50:06
OK, I checked on the locking issue with Dong Wei and according to him,
ESI is logically a part of SAL, so the same lock should be used to
serialize SAL and ESI calls.  In other words, the current patch should
be fine.



On 6/15/06, David Mosberger-Tang <> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> Below is a revised version of the ESI-support patch with the following changes:
>  * Export ia64_esi_call and ia64_esi_call_phys() as GPL symbols.
>  * Disallow building esi.c as a module for now.  Building as a module
> would currently
>    lead to an unresolved reference to "sal_lock" on SMP kernels
> because that symbol
>    doesn't get exported.  If it turns out that ESI calls can be locked
> separately from
>    SAL calls, we can replace sal_lock with a new esi_lock and reenable
> building as
>    a module (I'm checking into whether or not this is safe).
>  * Export esi_call_phys() only if ESI is enabled.
>  * Remove internal stuff from esi.h and add a "proc_type" argument to
> ia64_esi_call() such
>    that serialization-requirements can be expressed (ESI follows SAL
> here, where procedure
>    calls may have to be serialized, are MP-safe, or MP-safe andr reentrant).
> Signed-off-by: David Mosberger <>
>   --david
> --
> Mosberger Consulting LLC,

Mosberger Consulting LLC,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Sat Jun 17 01:50:47 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-06-17 01:50:59 EST