Re: [PATCH 1/3] mpt2sas: remove the use of writeq, since writeq isnot atomic

[Ingo Molnar]

* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 21:16 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Milton Miller <miltonm@xxxxxxx> 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
> 
> Yuck... Ingo, I think that was very wrong.
> 
> Those are for MMIO, which must almost ALWAYS know precisely what the
> resulting access size is going to be. It's not even about atomicity
> between multiple CPUs. I have seen plenty of HW for which a 64-bit
> access to a register is -not- equivalent to two 32-bit ones. In fact, in
> some case, you can get the side effects twice ... or none at all.
> 
> The only case where you can be lax is when you explicitely know that
> there is no side effects -and- the HW cope with different access sizes.
> This is not the general case and drivers need at the very least a way to
> know what the behaviour will be.

Ok, that's pretty convincing.

Unless hpa or tglx disagrees with reverting this, could any of you send a patch 
with a proper changelog etc. that applies cleanly to v2.6.39?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/