From: Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@gmail.com>
To: James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
Roland Dreier <roland@purestorage.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"hpa@linux.intel.com" <hpa@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NVMe: Fix compilation on architecturs without readq/writeq
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:48:32 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMO-S2i=DoYz93Ooebx0fyxcbqGqbcdcF9_GFrEor5DcscCXSA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMO-S2hCjvcDHheVETr5=+0Ks+G+NyYvr3mnxUV8jQSKzEgVGA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 00:34, Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:05, James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 15:35 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > non-atomic sounds good to me too.
>>>
>>> You both apparently missed the related discussion that some devices
>>> really do care about order, even if they don't care about atomicity.
>>>
>>> So we'd actually have two versions of the header file, one
>>> little-endian, and one big-endian. Then the driver that knows it
>>> doesn't need the atomic 'readq()' that is always defined, but wants a
>>> low-bytes-first version would just do
>>>
>>> #include <linux/io64-little-endian.h>
>>>
>>> (or "big-endian" if it wants to read/write high bits first). Most
>>> drivers probably don't care, but apparently NVMe does.
>>
>> And this was about the point I concluded last time that it simply wasn't
>> worth it with the number of different possibilities for the primitives
>> and trying to come up with a sensible naming scheme ... it's just easier
>> to open code because then you get exactly what you meant.
>>
>> Incidentally, the last time this came up was with mpt fusion: for a
>> write to a 64 bit register, it didn't care about order, but it did care
>> about interleaving as in if you write one half of a 64 bit register and
>> then write to another register, the 64 bit register effectively gets
>> written with zeros in the part you didn't write to, so we had to put a
>> spin lock in the open coded writeb/w/l/q() to make sure the card didn't
>> get interleaved writes.
>>
>> James
>>
>
> As you say, readq/writeq without any description about the semantics
> of atomicity will cause confusion in such a case.
>
> But new plan for non-atomic readq/writeq is defining non-atomic readq/writeq
> in the header file like asm-generic/io-nonatomic-hi-lo.h, and the file name
> is a good documentation for the description.
>
> The drivers which use readq/writeq without the line like
> #include <asm-generic/io-nonatomic-hi-lo.h>
> will cause compile error in the 32-bit environment.
>
> --
> Hitoshi Mitake
> h.mitake@gmail.com
I sent the patch which implements readq/writeq in the way.
If you have comments, I'd like to hear.
Thanks,
--
Hitoshi Mitake
h.mitake@gmail.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-07 2:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-20 1:01 [PATCH] NVMe: Fix compilation on architecturs without readq/writeq Matthew Wilcox
2012-01-20 1:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-20 17:43 ` Wilcox, Matthew R
2012-01-21 8:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-01-21 15:54 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2012-01-21 16:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-01-23 16:05 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2012-01-23 16:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-23 23:04 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-01-29 8:02 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2012-01-31 3:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-31 3:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-04 15:25 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2012-01-31 11:58 ` Alan Cox
2012-01-31 12:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-01-31 12:18 ` Alan Cox
2012-01-31 12:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-02-01 23:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-02 1:05 ` James Bottomley
2012-02-02 1:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-02 15:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-02-04 15:39 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2012-02-05 6:53 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-02-05 7:01 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2012-02-04 15:34 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2012-02-07 2:48 ` Hitoshi Mitake [this message]
2012-02-04 15:24 ` Hitoshi Mitake
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAMO-S2i=DoYz93Ooebx0fyxcbqGqbcdcF9_GFrEor5DcscCXSA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=h.mitake@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jbottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=roland@purestorage.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).