On 10/8/2019 2:54 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jae Hyun Yoo
<jae.hyun.yoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/8/2019 1:31 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:13:11PM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
In case of master pending state, it should not trigger the master
command because this H/W is sharing the same data buffer for slave
and master operations, so this commit fixes the issue with making
the master command triggering happen when the state goes to active
state.
nit: Makes sense, but can you explain what might happen without your
change?
If we don't use this fix, a master command could corrupt data in the
shared buffer if H/W is still on processing slave operation at the
timing.
Right, can you add that to the commit message?
Sure, will do that.
Is this trivially reproducible? We might want to submit this
separately as a bugfix.
It's very rarely observed.
Actually yeah, can you send this separately as a bugfix? I think we
might want to include this in 5.4.
Why not. I can send it separately but this patch series should wait for
merging the bug fix to avoid context conflicts.
Wolfram and Joel, what do you think?
