netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:18:13 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.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 08/22/2012 11:11 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 
> Well the whole point of having the two 32-bit generic implementations is
> that hardware may care about the order!  How can it be right that a
> 64-bit implementation assumes it doesn't?
> 

On x86 platforms it is pretty much universal (as in: I have never seen
an exception) that transactions that are broken up are broken up in
littleendian order.  That was the original readq/writeq implementation
on x86-32, but it screwed up some other architectures.

The other reason to not have readq/writeq by default where we *know* it
can't be supported is that some drivers (e.g. the CNIC/OPA-2 driver I
mentioned) can do better, performance-wise, if it knows that.

	-hpa
--
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