* Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 21:16 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Milton Miller 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?
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 08:46 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> This can't really be done generically. There are several considerations
> to do with hardware requirements. I can see some hw requiring a
> specific write order (I think this applies more to read order, though).
Right. Or there can be a
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 21:16 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Milton Miller 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
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 13:08 +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 04:11, Moore, Eric wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:31 PM Milton Miller wrote:
> >> Ingo I would propose the following commits added in 2.6.29 be reverted.
> >> I think the current concensus is drivers must
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Milton Miller 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 Ing
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 04:11, Moore, Eric wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:31 PM Milton Miller wrote:
>> Ingo I would propose the following commits added in 2.6.29 be reverted.
>> I think the current concensus is drivers must know if the writeq is
>> not atomic so they can provide their own
On Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:30 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> You may also want to look at Milton's comments, it looks like the way
> you do init_completion followed immediately by wait_completion is racy.
>
> You should init the completion before you do the IO that will eventually
> trig
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 09:35 -0600, Moore, Eric wrote:
> I worked the original defect a couple months ago, and Kashyap is now
> getting around to posting my patch's.
>
> This original defect has nothing to do with PPC64. The original
> problem was only on x86.It only became a problem on PPC64
On Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:31 PM Milton Miller wrote:
> Ingo I would propose the following commits added in 2.6.29 be reverted.
> I think the current concensus is drivers must know if the writeq is
> not atomic so they can provide their own locking or other workaround.
>
Exactly.
On Wed, 18 May 2011 about 09:35:56 -0600, Eric Moore wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:24 AM, Milton Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 May 2011 around 17:00:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > (Just adding Milton to the CC list, he suspects races in the
> > > driver instead).
> > >
> > > O
On Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:24 AM, Milton Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 around 17:00:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > (Just adding Milton to the CC list, he suspects races in the
> > driver instead).
> >
> > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 08:23 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2
On Wed, 18 May 2011 around 17:00:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> (Just adding Milton to the CC list, he suspects races in the
> driver instead).
>
> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 08:23 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 22:15 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 18,
(Just adding Milton to the CC list, he suspects races in the driver
instead).
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 08:23 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 22:15 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:37:08AM +0530, Desai, Kashyap wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 17:23 +
> > > Cc: sta...@kernle.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Kashyap Desai
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mpt2sas/mpt2sas_base.c
> > > b/drivers/scsi/mpt2sas/mpt2sas_base.c
> > > index efa0255..5778334 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/scsi/mpt2sas/mpt2sas_base.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/mpt2sas/mpt2sas
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:37:08AM +0530, Desai, Kashyap wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 17:23 +0530, Kashyap, Desai wrote:
> > The following code seems to be there in
> > /usr/src/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/io.h.
> > This is not going to work.
> >
> > static inline void writeq(__u64 val, volatile
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 22:15 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:37:08AM +0530, Desai, Kashyap wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 17:23 +0530, Kashyap, Desai wrote:
> > > The following code seems to be there in
> > > /usr/src/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/io.h.
> > > This is not go
16 matches
Mail list logo
