1. 27 1月, 2020 3 次提交
  2. 11 9月, 2019 1 次提交
  3. 01 9月, 2019 2 次提交
  4. 16 8月, 2019 1 次提交
  5. 09 8月, 2019 1 次提交
  6. 27 5月, 2019 1 次提交
  7. 08 4月, 2019 1 次提交
    • W
      drivers: Remove explicit invocations of mmiowb() · fb24ea52
      Will Deacon 提交于
      mmiowb() is now implied by spin_unlock() on architectures that require
      it, so there is no reason to call it from driver code. This patch was
      generated using coccinelle:
      
      	@mmiowb@
      	@@
      	- mmiowb();
      
      and invoked as:
      
      $ for d in drivers include/linux/qed sound; do \
      spatch --include-headers --sp-file mmiowb.cocci --dir $d --in-place; done
      
      NOTE: mmiowb() has only ever guaranteed ordering in conjunction with
      spin_unlock(). However, pairing each mmiowb() removal in this patch with
      the corresponding call to spin_unlock() is not at all trivial, so there
      is a small chance that this change may regress any drivers incorrectly
      relying on mmiowb() to order MMIO writes between CPUs using lock-free
      synchronisation. If you've ended up bisecting to this commit, you can
      reintroduce the mmiowb() calls using wmb() instead, which should restore
      the old behaviour on all architectures other than some esoteric ia64
      systems.
      Acked-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      fb24ea52
  8. 09 2月, 2019 1 次提交
  9. 29 1月, 2019 1 次提交
  10. 26 1月, 2019 1 次提交
  11. 23 1月, 2019 1 次提交
  12. 18 1月, 2019 1 次提交
  13. 01 12月, 2018 2 次提交
  14. 17 10月, 2018 1 次提交
  15. 03 10月, 2018 1 次提交
  16. 20 7月, 2018 1 次提交
  17. 01 6月, 2018 1 次提交
  18. 26 5月, 2018 1 次提交
  19. 23 5月, 2018 4 次提交
  20. 08 5月, 2018 2 次提交
  21. 24 4月, 2018 1 次提交
  22. 30 3月, 2018 1 次提交
  23. 03 1月, 2018 3 次提交
  24. 27 7月, 2017 4 次提交
  25. 21 6月, 2017 1 次提交
  26. 05 6月, 2017 1 次提交
    • M
      qed: Multiple qzone queues for VFs · 08bc8f15
      Mintz, Yuval 提交于
      This adds the infrastructure for supporting VFs that want to open
      multiple transmission queues on the same queue-zone.
      At this point, there are no VFs that actually request this functionality,
      but later patches would remedy that.
      
       a. VF and PF would communicate the capability during ACQUIRE;
          Legacy VFs would continue on behaving as they do today
      
       b. PF would communicate number of supported CIDs to the VF
          and would enforce said limitation
      
       c. Whenever VF passes a request for a given queue configuration
          it would also pass an associated index within said queue-zone
      Signed-off-by: NYuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@cavium.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      08bc8f15
  27. 02 6月, 2017 1 次提交