On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:43:20PM -0500, David Miller wrote:

From: Wei Yang <redacted>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:13:38 +0800

quoted

On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:42:37PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
If you prefer this way, I would like to send a new version for this.
Is it ok for you?

I'm not so sure.  There are implications when using the __raw_*()
routines.

In particular, using __raw_{read,write}l() also means that the usual
necessary I/O memory barriers are not being performed.

There are therefore no ordering guarantees between __raw_*() and other
I/O or memory accesses whatsoever.

Thanks David.

Actually, the last mail is asking David Laight. I am trying to understanding
his comment and Amir told me he was suggesting to use __raw_*() version.

Hmm... this is really a problem found in the v3.18-rc1 and the root cause is
the endianess. I am ok to use any method to fix this problem, even revert it.
Could the maintainer from Mellanox gives me a word?

-- 
Richard Yang
Help you, Help me