AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20090609233226.6c7066c8@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:mail.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<Bill.Fisher@onstor.com>,<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>,<rendell.fong@onstor.com>,<brian.stark@onstor.com>,<Bill.Fisher@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@exch1.onstor.net/INBOX	0	4A2F1E1F.5050004@onstor.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 23:33:07 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: Bill Fisher <Bill.Fisher@onstor.com>
Cc: Maxim Kozlovsky <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>, Rendell Fong
 <rendell.fong@onstor.com>, Brian Stark <brian.stark@onstor.com>, Bill
 Fisher <Bill.Fisher@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: FP <-> TXRX Cache Invalidation Ops
Message-ID: <20090609233307.3b1f9a89@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4A2F1E1F.5050004@onstor.com>
References: <4A2F1E1F.5050004@onstor.com>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:44:47 -0700 Bill Fisher <Bill.Fisher@onstor.com>
wrote:

> Max:
> 
> Rendell is seeing a case when sening IPC messages
> betweeen the TXRX and FP where it appears the
> data is not being received correctly. He was
> thinking this might be a missing cache invalidate.
> 
> The scenario is:
> 
> 1) FP allocates a message buffer
> 2) FP sends a message containing a pointer
>     of the buffer to the TXRX.
> 3) TXRX writes into the remote buffer
> 4) The correct data appears on the FP case.
> 
> If you do the following:
> 
> 1) TXRX allocates a remote buffer.
> 2) TXRX sends a message containing the
>     address of the buffer to the FP
> 3) FP reads the data, bug gets TRASH.
> 
> This assumes that the shared memory area has
> been setup.
> 
> Can you enumerate the bug fix case that
> was fixed recently due to the errata
> on the Broadcom 1480 between the FP
> and the TXRX that Brian was chasing for
> some time?

Look for bugs in the code: that errata and the bug that went with it
isn't related to this, sorry!

a
