Re: arch/x86/Kconfig selects invalid HAVE_READQ, HAVE_WRITEQ vars

[H. Peter Anvin]

Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > > However I worry that this just leaves driver authors too much rope.
>  > > Choosing readq_atomic() vs. readq() is just one more thing to get wrong.
>
>  > ... as is having each driver implementing their own substitutes.
>
> Yes, I agree with that.  However at least status quo ante (readq/writeq
> 64-bit only) means that driver authors who use readq/writeq are forced
> (by a compile error) to spend a little thought on what 32-bit fallback
> they should use.
>
> I guess one possibility is to make readq/writeq the atomic version, and
> add readq_nonatomic()/writeq_nonatomic() for 32-bit architectures.  Then
> it's much more opt-in -- but then that makes the (perhaps) more common
> case look a bit uglier.

Do you really expect driver authors to type writeq_nonatomic() for every 
register reference?

I think an #include at the top is one thing, but something that 
heavyweight for each call site really isn't going to fly.

	-hpa

--
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/