Hi Steven, Markus, On 9/10/07, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > -- > On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > > > I believe this possible, but unlikely (perhaps not so unlikely on > > virtual machines). Scenarios involve enable succeeding the first > > time, failing the second time, and succeeding the third time. I can > > provide details, but the point I'd like to make is not that this is > > broken (although it is, strictly speaking), but that it is not > > obviously correct where it easily could be: just clear the interrupt > > enable bits when writing them to the hardware failed, like the old > > code did. > > > > I also want to stress that this is more of a clean up for "technically > correct" code than a bug fix. This bug probably would never happen on > baremetal unless it was running on broken hardware. > > BUT!!! > > With more and more systems going to a virtual environment, having a bug or > some other anomaly can trigger the error that this patch prevents. The > patch will also trigger a print in the case of running on a buggy virtual > machine, which would help out the developers of that virtual machine to > fix their code. > The patch is in my tree and will be merged in the next window. -- Dmitry _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
