[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A0B4179.1000504@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:54:01 -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:
>>>
>> 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.
>
> Isn't that a variant of "punish all sane hardware, because bizarre
> unshipped hardware exists"?
>
> IMO the best fix is to document existing readq assumptions, and
> standardize that definition on other platforms.
>
> The burden of special casing for bizarre hardware should not fall on
> /sane/ drivers and hardware, who should be the ones opting _out_ of the
> standard regime.
>
It sort of is, but it's also a case of "explicitly documenting your
assumptions". You have do admit that having to #include a single extra
header file is hardly a hardship.
-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