Re: kern/118093: [firewire] firewire bus reset hogs CPU, causing data to be lost
Dieter <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.devel.firewire |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In message <[email protected]>, Sean Bruno writes: > @@ -1388,6 +1387,7 @@ > struct fw_device *fwdev; > > s = splfw(); > + FW_GLOCK(fc); > fc->status = FWBUSEXPLORE; > > /* Invalidate all devices, just after bus reset. */ > @@ -1396,6 +1396,7 @@ > fwdev->status = FWDEVINVAL; > fwdev->rcnt = 0; > } > + FW_GUNLOCK(fc); > splx(s); > > wakeup((void *)fc); If the (null these days) spl calls have been replaced with FW_GLOCK/FW_GUNLOCK calls, can the spl calls be removed now? > @@ -1922,6 +1924,8 @@ > u_int i; > struct firewire_comm *fc = (struct firewire_comm *)sc; > > + FW_GLOCK(fc); > + FW_GUNLOCK(fc); > if (stat & OHCI_INT_DMA_IR) { > irstat = atomic_readandclear_int(&sc->irstat); > for(i = 0; i < fc->nisodma ; i++){ This needs to be reviewed by someone who understands what is protected by getting a lock and then immediately releasing it. I have no clue. > @@ -1969,8 +1973,8 @@ > OWRITE(sc, OHCI_LNKCTLCLR, OHCI_CNTL_CYCTIMER); > #endif > OWRITE(sc, FWOHCI_INTMASKCLR, OHCI_INT_CYC_LOST); > - device_printf(fc->dev, "too many cycle lost, " > - "no cycle master presents?\n"); > + device_printf(fc->dev, "%s: too many cycle lost, " > + "no cycle master presents?\n", __func__); > } Should this be "too many cycles lost, " and "no cycle master present?\n" > uint32_t fun; > > + FW_GLOCK(fc); > device_printf(fc->dev, "Initiate bus reset\n"); > sc = (struct fwohci_softc *)fc; > > @@ -2487,6 +2495,7 @@ > fun |= FW_PHY_ISBR | FW_PHY_RHB; > fun = fwphy_wrdata(sc, FW_PHY_ISBR_REG, fun); > #endif > + FW_GUNLOCK(fc); > } Does the lock need to protect the printf? _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-firewire To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"