linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sata_sil: add Large Block Transfer support

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: <49506BBC.8040600@kernel.org>
Date:	Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:40:28 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>
CC:	ide <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sata_sil: add Large Block Transfer support

Hello, Robert.

Robert Hancock wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>>
>> ioread/iowrite?
> 
> We know the register's always MMIO on this controller, so it's slightly
> more optimal to avoid the conditional in there.

Yeah, by a small margin but I think the consensus was to use
ioread/write no matter what if it's mapped using iomap.  I don't think
we guarantee iomapped address == mmio address after all.

>> I know it's not specific to this change but does mb() really make
>> sense here?  I don't think we need any barrier here.
> 
> Not sure. Documentation/memory-barriers.txt seems rather unfortunately
> vague on whether MMIO writes are strongly ordered with respect to memory
> writes. I seem to recall some debate on this a while ago, did it ever
> get resolved?

I remember that thread too but don't really any definite conclusion.
Eh... I hate barriers lying around without exact explanation.  :-(

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/