login
Login
/
Register
Search
Search this site:
Forums
News
Blogs
Features
Site
Home
»
Mailing list archives
»
linux-kernel
»
2008
»
May
»
2
RE: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??
view
thread
Previous message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Next message: [thread] [
date
] [
author
]
[view in full thread]
From: Moore, Eric
Subject:
RE: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??
Date: Friday, May 2, 2008 - 4:31 pm
On Friday, May 02, 2008 5:22 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
quoted text
> > Yeah, I forgot I have a #ifndef writeq, then defined the > x86_64 version > > of that. I've not tested on x86, so I'm not sure whether > it works. > > How are you handling writeq when its not defined, as the > case in x86? > > Write two writel() inside a spinlock to avoid any transactions in the > middle (the HW I'm dealing with can deal with two 32-bit transactions, > as long as nothing comes in the middle). If your hardware demands a > single 64-bit transaction, you may be in trouble, because I'm not sure > all 32-bit systems can generate such a PCIe transaction. > > You can see include/linux/mlx4/doorbell.h for exactly what I did. >
Thanks for the code sample. Yes, I need to send a single atomic 64-bit transaction. Eric --
unsubscribe notice
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/
Previous message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Next message: [thread] [
date
] [
author
]
Messages in current thread:
Re: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??
, David Miller
, (Fri May 2, 3:32 pm)
Re: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??
, Roland Dreier
, (Fri May 2, 3:43 pm)
Re: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??
, David Miller
, (Fri May 2, 3:49 pm)
RE: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??
, Moore, Eric
, (Fri May 2, 3:49 pm)
Re: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??
, Roland Dreier
, (Fri May 2, 3:53 pm)
RE: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??
, Moore, Eric
, (Fri May 2, 4:13 pm)
Re: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??
, Roland Dreier
, (Fri May 2, 4:21 pm)
RE: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??
, Moore, Eric
, (Fri May 2, 4:31 pm)
Navigation
Create content
Mailing list archives
Recent posts
Popular discussions
linux-kernel
:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Re: [PATCH 1/4] hvc_console: do not set low_latency
Russell King
Re: ARM defconfig files
Carsten Otte
Re: [patch] ext2: xip check fix
Jordan Crouse
Re: 2.6.25-mm1
James Morris
Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook
git
:
Felipe Contreras
Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins
Johannes Schindelin
[PATCH] fetch: refuse to fetch into the current branch in a non-bare repository
Johannes Schindelin
Re: [PATCH] Fix install-doc-quick target
Peter Oberndorfer
Subject: [PATCH] fix stg edit command
Nicolas Pitre
Re: About git and the use of SHA-1
linux-netdev
:
Ursula Braun
[patch 2/8] [PATCH] af_iucv: sync sk shutdown flag if iucv path is quiesced
Andi Kleen
Re: RFC: Nagle latency tuning
Gary Thomas
Re: Marvell 88E609x switch?
David Miller
Re: [RFC 0/5] generic rx recycling
Chuck Lever
Re: [RFC] ipv6: Change %pI6 format to output compacted addresses?
dragonflybsd-user
:
Andreas Hauser
Re: Transset.
Tomas
usb printer Brother HL-2030 and DragonFly
Matthew Dillon
Re: DragonFlyBSD not in compliance with RFC 1122
Nikolai Lifanov
pkgsrc issues
Jonas
Re: New to DragonFly...
dragonflybsd-submit
:
Ilya Dryomov
git: HAMMER - Add live_dedup_cache_size sysctl
Matthew Dillon
git: MBUF - Account for failed allocations so netstat -m reports properly.
Simon Schubert
git: make.conf(5): mention STATIC_LOCALES
Matthias Schmidt
cvs commit: src/sys/net bpf.c bpf.h bpfdesc.h
Simon Schubert
git: Revert "Increase the default TCP maximum segment size from 512 to 1460."
Colocation donated by:
Syndicate