|   | 
      | 
  
  
      | 
      | 
  
 
     | 
    | 
  
  
     | 
    | 
  
  
    |   | 
      | 
  
  
    | 
         
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
 
 |   
 
 | 
    | 
  
  
    |   | 
    |