From: Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: arch/x86/Kconfig selects invalid HAVE_READQ, HAVE_WRITEQ vars
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:47:10 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a6b9f31a0904200747x7e28a4e3if0be4fc0d87241c9@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090420105304.GC6670@elte.hu>
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 19:53, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>
>> Roland Dreier wrote:
>> >
>> > Notice that it reads from addr+4 *before* it reads from addr, rather
>> > than after as in your example (and in fact your example depends on
>> > undefined compiler semantics, since there is no sequence point between
>> > the two operands of the | operator). Now, I don't know that hardware,
>> > so I don't know if it makes a difference, but the niu example I gave in
>> > my original email shows that given hardware with clear-on-read
>> > registers, the order does very much matter.
>> >
>>
>> At least for x86, the order should be low-high, because that is the
>> order that those two transactions would be seen on a 32-bit bus
>> downstream from the CPU if the CPU issued a 64-bit transaction.
>>
>> The only sane way to handle this as something other than per-driver
>> hacks would be something like:
>>
>> #include <linux/io64.h> /* Any 64-bit I/O OK */
>>
>> #include <linux/io64lh.h> /* Low-high splitting OK */
>>
>> #include <linux/io64hl.h> /* High-low splitting OK */
>>
>> #include <linux/io64atomic.h> /* 64-bit I/O must be atomic */
>>
>> ... i.e. letting the driver choose what fallback method it will accept.
>
> Yeah - with the default being the natural low-high order.
>
> The other argument is that if a driver really wants some rare, oddly
> different order it should better define its own method that is not
> named in the same (or in a similar) way as an existing generic API.
> Otherwise, confusion will ensue.
I think this is a good way.
readq/writeq are already in Linus's tree, removing these is not a good idea.
And I've sent the patch to fix a little problem of Kconfig about
readq/writeq to you.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123521109218008&w=2
Did you notice?
Adding cautions about accessing order or non-atomic to Kconfig's help
part may be benefit.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-20 14:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-19 19:45 arch/x86/Kconfig selects invalid HAVE_READQ, HAVE_WRITEQ vars Robert P. J. Day
2009-04-19 21:12 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-19 21:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-19 22:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-19 22:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-20 0:56 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-20 2:08 ` Robert Hancock
2009-04-20 0:53 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-20 1:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-20 10:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-20 14:47 ` Hitoshi Mitake [this message]
2009-04-20 16:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 8:33 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-04-21 8:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 8:57 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-04-21 15:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-21 17:07 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-21 17:19 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-21 17:23 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-21 19:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-21 21:11 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-21 21:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-04-22 0:31 ` David Miller
2009-04-28 19:05 ` [PATCH] x86: Remove readq()/writeq() on 32-bit Roland Dreier
2009-04-29 5:12 ` David Miller
2009-04-29 11:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29 12:10 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-04-29 17:25 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-29 19:59 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-13 5:32 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-05-13 20:19 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-13 22:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-13 23:39 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 0:49 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-14 7:19 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-05-15 23:44 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-17 7:12 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-05-17 8:06 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-21 11:35 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-05-21 11:49 ` Hitoshi Mitake
2009-05-13 20:42 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-13 21:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-13 21:30 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-13 21:31 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-05-13 21:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-13 22:06 ` Roland Dreier
2009-05-13 22:29 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-04-29 17:21 ` Roland Dreier
2009-04-22 0:27 ` arch/x86/Kconfig selects invalid HAVE_READQ, HAVE_WRITEQ vars David Miller
2009-04-22 0:25 ` David Miller
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=a6b9f31a0904200747x7e28a4e3if0be4fc0d87241c9@mail.gmail.com \
--to=h.mitake@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=rpjday@crashcourse.ca \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).