From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262541AbVFJK1h (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:27:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262379AbVFJK1g (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:27:36 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:32493 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262541AbVFJK1K (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:27:10 -0400 Message-ID: <42A96BC0.9000505@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:30:24 +0900 From: Hidetoshi Seto User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Linux Kernel list , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Linas Vepstas , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , long , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linuxppc64-dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] IOCHK interface for I/O error handling/detecting References: <42A8386F.2060100@jp.fujitsu.com> <20050609171332.GC24611@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20050609171332.GC24611@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>Today's patch is 3rd one - iochk_clear/read() interface. >>- This also adds pair-interface, but not to sandwich only readX(). >> Depends on platform, starting with ioreadX(), inX(), writeX() >> if possible... and so on could be target of error checking. > > It makes sense to sandwich other kinds of device accesses. I don't > think the previous clear/read_pci_errors() interface was intended *only* > to sandwich readX(). At least there was _me_ who actually intended that... :-p Thank you for being so understanding. >>- Additionally adds special token - abstract "iocookie" structure >> to control/identifies/manage I/Os, by passing it to OS. >> Actual type of "iocookie" could be arch-specific. Device drivers >> could use the iocookie structure without knowing its detail. > > I'm not sure we need this. Surely it can be deduced from the pci_dev or > struct device? Once I prepared a cookie per a device, added it into pci_dev. But one of our NIC driver folks pointed out that it was hard to handle because there could be many contexts/threads riding on one device at same time. So I reconsidered it and now come to "a cookie per a context" style. >> *buf++ = ioread32(dev, ofs); > > You do know that ioread32() doesn't take a pci_dev, right? I hope you > weren't counting on that for the rest of your implementation. Oops. It's just my typo. Please ignore it. Thanks, H.Seto