Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, 01 May 2018 19:48:58 +1000 > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 00:55 +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> > The RAW console does not need writes to be atomic, so relax >> > opal_put_chars to be able to do partial writes, and implement an >> > _atomic variant which does not take a spinlock. This API is used >> > in xmon, so the less locking that is used, the better chance there >> > is that a crash can be debugged. >> >> Same comment I already had :-) "atomic" in Linux tends to mean >> something else (ie, atomic context), so I'd rather have something >> like opal_put_chars_sync() or such... > > Oh yeah, I didn't ignore you, just... I thought atomic was okay. > atomic *also* tends to mean happens atomically. I think the in > atomic context meaning actually tends to be inatomic. > > Sync I actually thought could be more easily confused with > synchronous vs asynchronous here.
I think we probably want opal_put_chars() to stay as it is. And then add a variant for the call (just xmon?) that want lock free behaviour. opal_put_chars_unlocked() or something? cheers
