[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50352265.3050203@zytor.com>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists