lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: Remove readq()/writeq() on 32-bit
Date

> To repeat what has already been stated, each case was re-evaluated:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124103527326835&w=2
>
> Roland's patch was acked, apparently, _in spite of_ the commonly
> accepted readq() definition already being in use!
>
> Thusfar, I see two things:
>
> (1) years of history has shown that non-atomic readq/writeq on 32-bit
> platforms has been sufficient, based on testing and experience. In
> fact, in niu's case, a common readq/writeq would have PREVENTED a bug.

But the fact that the 32-bit x86 define would have worked for niu is
pure luck -- if the clear-on-read bits had been in the other half of the
register in question, then it would have caused a bug. And I really
don't trust all ASIC designers writing RTL to think about which half of
a 64-bit register is going to be read first.

To me, the point is that the current situation of having the defines for
32-bit x86 has zero benefit -- not one driver-specific definition can be
removed, because there are other 32-bit architectures to worry about.
So we just added another copy of the compatibility wrapper, in a not
particularly good location -- we certainly don't want to have the same
defines copied into every 32-bit architecture's <asm/io.h> header.

And the risk introduced is not zero -- very few devices have 64-bit
registers and very few drivers use readq or writeq, but perhaps as
end-to-end 64-bit buses become more prevalent with PCIe, we may see
more. And it's certainly the case that emulation 64-bit register
operations by doing to 32-bit operations on the register halves carries
a non-zero risk of making the hardware do something wacky.

So to me the it's pretty clear: the current situation has benefit == 0
&& risk > 0, so we should revert to the previous situation until someone
implements something more complete like hpa's opt-in header scheme.
- R.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-14 00:09    [W:0.233 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site