linux-kernel - Re: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <adaod7o2sxh.fsf@cisco.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 May 2008 16:21:46 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	"Moore\, Eric" <Eric.Moore@....com>
Cc:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??

 > Yeah,  I forgot I have a #ifndef writeq, then defined the x86_64 version
 > of that.   I've not tested on x86, so I'm not sure whether it works.
 > How are you handling writeq when its not defined, as the case in x86?

Write two writel() inside a spinlock to avoid any transactions in the
middle (the HW I'm dealing with can deal with two 32-bit transactions,
as long as nothing comes in the middle).  If your hardware demands a
single 64-bit transaction, you may be in trouble, because I'm not sure
all 32-bit systems can generate such a PCIe transaction.

You can see include/linux/mlx4/doorbell.h for exactly what I did.

 - R.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/