[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1345653844.2709.51.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:44:04 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>, <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 08:54 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/22/2012 08:51 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >>
> >> FWIW can you even guarantee to do an atomic 64bit PCIe transfer
> >> on many systems (without resorting to a dma unit).
> >
> > On any architecture that implements readq and writeq these had better be
> > atomic.
> >
>
> Sorry, you fail. There are definitely systems in the field where
> readq() and writeq() are implemented, because the CPU supports them,
> where the fabric does not guarantee they are intact.
Well, when the issue of 64-bit MMIO was discussed earlier this year, you
said nothing about this. I thought the conclusion was that any
definitions provided by <asm/io.h> *must* be atomic and drivers can use
<asm-generic/io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h> or
<asm-generic/io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h> as a fallback.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists