|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
Ky,
You are correct. I received this as a bugzilla on FC-5. Testing a
solution now (replacing copy_to_user w/copy_to_user_inatomic).
The other problem with the call to copy_to_user is that a kmap_atomic()
is done just before it as well, and the thread can't be blocked before
the kunmap_atomic() is invoked (after the copy_to_user()).
Unfortunately, tomorrow is company holiday, so I won't complete the
testing until Monday; need to get more memory to force swiotlb's
sync_single() to do the copy (due to bounce IO).
- Don
Ky Srinivasan wrote:
Given that the function __sync_single() can be called in an interrupt
context, why do we call a potentially blocking function
(__copy_to_user) from within this function?
Regards,
K. Y
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
|
|