[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A0B3605.8090007@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:05:09 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
CC: Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
tglx@...utronix.de, rpjday@...shcourse.ca,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove readq()/writeq() on 32-bit
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> (2) unspecified fears continue to linger about non-atomicity
>
> We should not base decisions on fear, particularly when the weight of
> evidence and experience points in the other direction.
>
I have personally dealt with at least one device who'd want to opt out
of a standard readq/writeq (it's not in-tree because it never shipped,
unfortunately.) Doing the opt-in headers seems like a reasonable thing
to do to me, but perhaps I'm just being overly paranoid.
-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