On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 02:42:11PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox was heard to remark: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 05:33:48PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote: > > Today's patch is 3rd one - iochk_clear/read() interface. > > - This also adds pair-interface, but not to sandwich only readX(). > > Depends on platform, starting with ioreadX(), inX(), writeX() > > if possible... and so on could be target of error checking. > > I'd prefer to see it as ioerr_clear(), ioerr_read() ...
I'd prefer pci_io_start() and pci_io_check_err() The names should have "pci" in them. I don't like "ioerr_clear" because it implies we are clearing the io error; we are not; we are clearing the checker for io errors. > > - Additionally adds special token - abstract "iocookie" structure > > to control/identifies/manage I/Os, by passing it to OS. > > Actual type of "iocookie" could be arch-specific. Device drivers > > could use the iocookie structure without knowing its detail. > > Fine. Do we really need a cookie? > > If arch doesn't(or cannot) have its io-checking strategy, these > > interfaces could be used as a replacement of local_irq_save/restore > > pair. Therefore, driver maintainer can write their driver code with > > these interfaces for all arch, even where checking is not implemented. > > But many drivers don't need to save/restore interrupts around IO accesses. > I think defaulting these to disable and restore interrupts is a very bad idea. > They should probably be no-ops in the generic case. Yes, they should be no-ops. save/resotre interrupts would be a bad idea. --linas - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
