[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimDktq8SxOU3HZkPpj=J9pdkzVX-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 21:16:49 -0700
From: Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>
To: Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Desai, Kashyap" <Kashyap.Desai@....com>,
"Prakash, Sathya" <Sathya.Prakash@....com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux scsi dev <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>,
linux powerpc dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mpt2sas: remove the use of writeq, since writeq is
not atomic
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Milton Miller <miltonm@....com> wrote:
> So the real question should be why is x86-32 supplying a broken writeq
> instead of letting drivers work out what to do it when needed?
Sounds a lot like what I was asking a couple of years ago :)
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/19/164
But Ingo insisted that non-atomic writeq would be fine:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/19/167
- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists