[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49EE19E0.8040405@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:09:20 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
CC: Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...shcourse.ca>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: arch/x86/Kconfig selects invalid HAVE_READQ, HAVE_WRITEQ vars
Roland Dreier wrote:
> > > However I worry that this just leaves driver authors too much rope.
> > > Choosing readq_atomic() vs. readq() is just one more thing to get wrong.
>
> > ... as is having each driver implementing their own substitutes.
>
> Yes, I agree with that. However at least status quo ante (readq/writeq
> 64-bit only) means that driver authors who use readq/writeq are forced
> (by a compile error) to spend a little thought on what 32-bit fallback
> they should use.
>
> I guess one possibility is to make readq/writeq the atomic version, and
> add readq_nonatomic()/writeq_nonatomic() for 32-bit architectures. Then
> it's much more opt-in -- but then that makes the (perhaps) more common
> case look a bit uglier.
>
Do you really expect driver authors to type writeq_nonatomic() for every
register reference?
I think an #include at the top is one thing, but something that
heavyweight for each call site really isn't going to fly.
-hpa
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists