From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 7 16:00:32 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F7091065679 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:00:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD438FC18 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:00:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q17G0WwN052102 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:00:32 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q17G0WnH052101; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:00:32 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:00:32 GMT Message-Id: <201202071600.q17G0WnH052101@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org From: dfilter@FreeBSD.ORG (dfilter service) Cc: Subject: Re: arm/161492: commit references a PR X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: dfilter service List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:00:32 -0000 The following reply was made to PR arm/161492; it has been noted by GNATS. From: dfilter@FreeBSD.ORG (dfilter service) To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: arm/161492: commit references a PR Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:50:49 +0000 (UTC) Author: cognet Date: Tue Feb 7 15:50:14 2012 New Revision: 231131 URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/231131 Log: MFC r226441 and r226443 r226441: Explicitely set ARM_RAS_START and ARM_RAS_END once the cacheline or the page has been allocated, or we could end up using random values, and bad things could happen. PR: arm/161492 Submitted by: Ian Lepore r226443: Fix 2 bugs : - A race condition could happen if two threads were using RAS at the same time as the code didn't reset RAS_END, the RAS code could believe we were not in a RAS, when we were in fact. - Using signed value logic to compare addresses wasn't such a good idea. Many thanks to Ian to investigate on these issues. Pointy hat to: cognet PR: arm/161498 Submitted by: Ian Lepore