Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:58:30 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] NVMe: Fix compilation on architecturs without readq/writeq |
| |
* Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 17:28, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Matthew Wilcox > >> <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com> wrote: > >> > The only places that uses readq/writeq are in the initialisation > >> > path. Since they're not performance critical, always use readl/writel. > >> > >> The arch rules are that i fthe architecture has readq/writeq, they > >> will be #define'd (they may be inline functions, but there will be a > >> > >> #define readq readq > >> > >> to make it visible to the preprocessor as well). > >> > >> So if you don't need the atomicity guarantees of a "real" readq, you > >> can do this instead: > >> > >> #ifndef readq > >> static inline u64 readq(void __iomem *addr) > >> { > >> return readl(addr) | (((u64) readl(addr + 4)) << 32LL); > >> } > >> #endif > >> > >> and then use readq() as if it existed. > >> > >> And I do think we should expose this in some generic manner. Because > >> we currently don't, we already have that pattern copied in quite a few > >> drivers. > >> > >> Maybe <asm-generic/io-nonatomic.h> or something? Making it > >> clear that its not atomic, but avoiding the silly duplication > >> we do now.. > >> > >> This whole mess was introduced in commit dbee8a0affd5 ("x86: > >> remove 32-bit versions of readq()/writeq()"), and it already > >> talked about the problems but didn't help with the drivers > >> that simply don't care. > >> > >> All the people in those threads were doing their > >> self-satisfied "writeq is broken", without much acknowledging > >> that 99% of users simply don't seem to care. > >> > >> "Occupy Writeq - We are the 99%" > > > > Agreed, and offering a generic facility for silly duplication > > was the motivation of the original commit by Hitoshi Mitake. > > > > This: > > > > | The presense of a writeq() implementation on 32-bit x86 that > > | splits the 64-bit write into two 32-bit writes turns out to > > | break the mpt2sas driver (and in general is risky for drivers > > | as was discussed in > > | <http://lkml.kernel.org/r/adaab6c1h7c.fsf@cisco.com>). > > > > is actually a mostly bogus statement and creates more problems > > than it solves. > > > > Hitoshi-san, would you be interested in re-adding the generic > > readq/writeq definitions in a slight variation to 2c5643b1c5, to > > a separate io-nonatomic.h file, so that drivers that want it can > > #include that file and be happy? > > It sounds nice. In the previous discussion, I suggested that > chaning the name of non-atomic readq/writeq to > readq_nonatomic/writeq_nonatomic. And James Bottomley > replied that it is fine but not really very useful: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/19/13 > > The idea of providing non-atomic readq/writeq in the new file > with the name which express non-atomicity clearly might be > able to satisfy both of safety and usefulness. > > It will reduce the duplication of the definition. In addition > readq/writeq users don't have to type the long symbols with > _nonatomic suffix and can know non-atomicity from the name > of header file. > > I'd like to hear opinions from James, Roland and folks who > dislike non-atomic readq/writeq.
Drivers that want the definition add this line to their driver:
#include <asm/io-nonatomic.h>
and then readq()/writeq() does the obvious thing. No need for readq_nonatomic()/writeq_nonatomic() - that extra line declares things clearly enough and cannot be added accidentally.
Thanks,
Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |