Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:18:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:18:55 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:58638 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:18:55 -0400 Message-ID: <3D93348D.3060304@pobox.com> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:23:41 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik Organization: MandrakeSoft User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [RFC] {read,write}s{b,w,l} or iobarrier_*() References: <20020926155941.3602@192.168.4.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 947 Lines: 29 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > So we have 2 solutions here (one of which I prefer, but I > still want the debate open here): > > - Have all archs provide {read,write}s{b,w,l} functions. > Those will hide all of the details of bytewapping & barriers > from the drivers and can be used as-is for things like IDE > MMIO iops. I prefer this solution... > - Have all archs provide iobarrier_* functions. Here, drivers > would still have to re-implement the transfer loops with > raw_{read,write}{b,w,l} and do proper use of iobarrier_*. I have a tulip patch from Peter de Shivjer (sp?) that adds iobarrier_rw() and I think it looks ugly as sin. I would much prefer the first solution... Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/