From owner-freebsd-alpha Wed Jul 19 16:32:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (adsl-63-202-177-51.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.202.177.51]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E857037B764 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:32:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com) Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.osd.bsdi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA27822; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:41:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com) Message-Id: <200007192341.QAA27822@mass.osd.bsdi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Andrew Gallatin Cc: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fxp0 hangs on a PC164 using STABLE In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:37:19 EDT." <14707.48450.371071.494543@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:41:21 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I think I have a fix. It feels like overkill, but if the programming > interface of the chip does not allow for something better why not just > turn off DMA while we update cb_command? The gotcha with this is of course that you have no idea what "turning off DMA" actually entails. If the chip is in the middle of a DMA operation, what happens then? Do you lose the entire DMA? Does it keep going? How often does the chip test the flag, etc... > Can a PCI expert comment on its safety? Mike? I think the approach you've taken with using atomic updates is definitely the right one. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message