Re: [PATCH] NVMe: Fix compilation on architecturs withoutreadq/writeq

From: James Bottomley
Date: Wed Feb 01 2012 - 20:06:09 EST

On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 15:35 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > non-atomic sounds good to me too.
> You both apparently missed the related discussion that some devices
> really do care about order, even if they don't care about atomicity.
> So we'd actually have two versions of the header file, one
> little-endian, and one big-endian. Then the driver that knows it
> doesn't need the atomic 'readq()' that is always defined, but wants a
> low-bytes-first version would just do
> #include <linux/io64-little-endian.h>
> (or "big-endian" if it wants to read/write high bits first). Most
> drivers probably don't care, but apparently NVMe does.

And this was about the point I concluded last time that it simply wasn't
worth it with the number of different possibilities for the primitives
and trying to come up with a sensible naming scheme ... it's just easier
to open code because then you get exactly what you meant.

Incidentally, the last time this came up was with mpt fusion: for a
write to a 64 bit register, it didn't care about order, but it did care
about interleaving as in if you write one half of a 64 bit register and
then write to another register, the 64 bit register effectively gets
written with zeros in the part you didn't write to, so we had to put a
spin lock in the open coded writeb/w/l/q() to make sure the card didn't
get interleaved writes.


¢éì®&Þ~º&¶¬–+-±éÝ¥Šw®žË±Êâmébžìdz¹Þ)í…æèw*jg¬±¨¶‰šŽŠÝj/êäz¹ÞŠà2ŠÞ¨è­Ú&¢)ß«a¶Úþø®G«éh®æj:+v‰¨Šwè†Ù>Wš±êÞiÛaxPjØm¶Ÿÿà -»+ƒùdš_