lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC LKMM 1/7] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 03:09:49PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Heh, your confusion might be the reflection of mine... ;-) That was
> > indeed a long and not conclusive discussion (meaning there're pending
> > issues); and I cannot claim to find "arguments" such as:
> >
> > "More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that
> > the LKMM should enforce ordering of writes by locking."
> >
> > particularly helpful (I do tend to be convinced by arguments rather
> > than by opinions). In fact, you can take the following as my only
> > current "constructive argument" against the patch [1,2]:
> >
> > THE COMMIT MESSAGE IS RIDICULOUS; PLEASE EXPAND ON IT, AND DO
> > SO BY LEVERAGING BOTH PROS AND CONS OF THE APPLIED CHANGES
>
> Do you have any concrete suggestions (i.e., some actual text) for
> improvements to the patch description? Earlier in your message you
> mentioned that Will's comment:
>
> LKMM offers stronger guarantees that can portably be relied upon
> in the codebase.
>
> would make a good addition. Suitably edited, it could be added to the
> description. I can think of a few other things myself, but I'd like to
> hear your thoughts. Anything else?

Yes: I do sometimes have the impression that your "rules" for trimming
text in emails/replies are too aggressive...

Andrea


>
> Alan
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-05 09:22    [W:0.111 / U:0.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site