From: Linus Torvalds <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: David Woodhouse <email@example.com> Cc: Alan <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jeff Garzik <email@example.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable controllers Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:48:07 -0800 (PST) [thread overview] Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, David Woodhouse wrote: > > Of course it could, but then again why shouldn't we special-case zero in > _all_ of those use cases, just to make life easier for those poor driver > authors who presumably can't manage to write userspace code using stdin > or open() either. You're not thinking, or, more likely YOU DON'T WANT TO. What is so hard to understand? IRQ0 is a _real_irq_ as far as the *platform* goes even on PC's. Same goes for IO-port 0 and MMIO area zero. Same goes for virtual address zero in a lot of user programs. It's a real virtual address. The fact that the NULL pointer points there doesn't make it less real. Do you really have such a hard time understanding this fundamental issue? Irq0 may _exist_. IO Port 0 may _exist_. Virtual address 0 may _exist_. Got it? But they ARE NOT VALID THINGS FOR DRIVERS TO WORRY ABOUT. When a *DRIVER* sees a NULL pointer, it's always a sign of "not here". It's not a "valid pointer that just happens to be at virtual address zero". But in other contexts it actually _can_ be exactly that (ie when you call "mmap(NULL .. MAP_FIXED)" you actually will get a NULL pointer that is a *REAL POINTER*. Similarly, when a *DRIVER* seens a "port 0" or MMIO 0, it is perfectly valid for that driver to say "ok, my device apparently doesn't have an IO port". That does not mean that "port 0" doesn't exist. It just means that AS FAR AS A DRIVER IS CONCERNED, port 0 is not a valid port for a driver! Port 0 actually *does* exist on a PC. It's a system port (it also happens to be a total legacy port that nobody would ever use, but that's another issue entirely). The same thing is true of irq 0. It exists. It's a valid IRQ for archtiecture code for a PC. It's just NOT A VALID IRQ FOR A DRIVER! So when a driver sees a device with !irq, it knows that the irq hasn't been allocated. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to accept. Even when you yourself accept that irq0 actually *exists*, and even when you give as an example why "setup_irq()" must be able to take that irq, you give that as some kind of ass-hat example of why you are "right". Now you do exactly the same thing for the IO port space. You're totally confused. You say the words, and you seem to understand that device drivers are special. But then you don't seem to follow that understanding through, and you want to then say that everything else is special too. Don't you get it? If everybody is special, then nobody is special. System code is special. System code can do things that drivers shouldn't do. System code can know that irq0 is actually the timer, and can set it up. System code can know that IO port 0 is actually decoded by the old and insane AT architecture DMA controller. This is not even kernel-specific. "normal programs" think that NULL is special, and is never a valid pointer. But "system programs" may actually know better. If you're programming in DOS-EMU, and use vm86 mode, you know that you actually need to map the virtual address that is at 0, and NULL is suddenly not actually an invalid pointer: it's literally a pointer to the first byte in the vm86 model. But when "malloc()" returns NULL, you know that it doesn't return such a "system pointer", so when malloc returns NULL, you realize that it's a special value. The *EXACT* same thing is true within the kernel. When x86 architecture code explicitly sets up IRQ0, it does so because it knows that it's the timer interrupt. But that doesn't make it a valid irq for *anybody* else. Ok, enough shouting. Comprende? Do you _really_ think that the NULL pointer "doesn't exist"? Or can you realize that it's generally just a convention, and it's a convention that has been selected to be maximally easy to test for (both on a code generation level and on a C syntax level)? It doesn't mean that virtual address 0 "doesn't exist", and could not be mapped. The exact same thing is true of "IO port 0". It's the maximally simple _convention_ for someting that may actually exist, but it's somethign that NO NORMAL USER SHOULD EVER SEE AS A REAL IO PORT. There are special users that may use it, exactly the same way special users who know deep hardware details may decide that "on this architecture, the NULL pointer actually _literally_ means virtual address zero, and when I do *xyz* I actually can access things through it". Does the fact that some things can use NULL as meaning something else than "no pointer" invalidate NULL as a concept? No. It just means that those things are very architecture-specific. They're not "common code" aka "drivers" any more. Same exact deal. Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-26 4:48 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2007-01-25 15:09 Alan 2007-01-25 16:14 ` David Woodhouse 2007-01-25 16:17 ` Jeff Garzik 2007-01-25 16:19 ` David Woodhouse 2007-01-25 16:22 ` Russell King 2007-01-25 16:26 ` David Woodhouse 2007-01-25 17:27 ` Alan 2007-01-25 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-01-26 0:23 ` David Woodhouse 2007-01-26 1:28 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-01-26 1:45 ` Jeff Garzik 2007-01-26 2:01 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-01-26 2:11 ` Jeff Garzik 2007-01-26 10:37 ` Alan 2007-01-28 23:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt 2007-01-28 22:57 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt 2007-01-26 2:23 ` David Woodhouse 2007-01-26 2:58 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-01-26 3:28 ` David Woodhouse 2007-01-26 4:00 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-01-26 4:19 ` David Woodhouse 2007-01-26 4:48 ` Linus Torvalds [this message] 2007-01-26 5:09 ` David Woodhouse 2007-01-26 6:01 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-01-26 6:18 ` Linus Torvalds 2007-01-26 8:17 ` David Miller 2007-01-26 8:20 ` David Miller 2007-01-26 4:53 ` Jeff Garzik 2007-01-26 15:32 ` Mark Lord 2007-01-26 15:29 ` Mark Lord 2007-01-28 23:04 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt 2007-01-28 22:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt 2007-01-25 23:36 ` Jeff Garzik
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=Pine.LNX.email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don'\''t call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable controllers' \ /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
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.