[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALzJLG9Lr4VcOpYLXKNHmHLzjxDCMN6AvaTRjW7ZZEMukPdZ4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:12:58 -0800
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>,
Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 4/4] net/mlx5: Remove spinlock support from mlx5_write64
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 8:46 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 12:43:14AM -0700, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > You need to do one of two things:
> > 1. Require CONFIG_64BIT and delete this 32bit code.
> > 2. Declare global mlx5 DB spinlock and use on 32bit systems, something
> > like this:
> > #if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
> > __raw_writeq(*(u64 *)val, dest);
> > #else
> > spin_lock_irqsave(doorbell_lock, flags);
> > __raw_writel((__force u32) val[0], dest);
> > __raw_writel((__force u32) val[1], dest + 4);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(doorbell_lock, flags);
> > #endif
>
> And why is this code using the __raw_ versions? Seems wrong too...
>
for 64 and 32 as well?
what is wrong with the raw version ?
> Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists