[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: current kernel on amd64 crashes
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:41:35PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > Could it be this change ?
> > - low = inb(IO_TIMER1 + TIMER_CNTR0);
> > - high = inb(IO_TIMER1 + TIMER_CNTR0);
> > - count = rtclock_tval - ((high << 8) | low);
> > -
> > + /* insb to make the read atomic */
> > + insb(IO_TIMER1+TIMER_CNTR0, &rdval, 2);
> > + count = rtclock_tval - rdval;
> I don't know, but I also have no reason to believe that the comment (and
> hence the modified code) is correct.
The only real diff is that you won't get interrupts processed in the
middle, I think. That doesn't matter much as the code is running on
> In order to get a consistent view of the counter, you have to latch it.
The timer is always latched.
Main Index |
Thread Index |