RE: HELP: Is writeq an atomic operation??

[Moore, Eric]

On Friday, May 02, 2008 5:22 PM,  Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > 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
--
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/