From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Parri Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC LKMM 1/7] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:24:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20180905152418.GA8874@andrea> References: <20180904081144.GA4137@andrea> <20180905072151.GA3185@andrea> <50f0a7a7-0521-f833-34c3-132ce57dd777@gmail.com> <20180905150042.GA8820@andrea> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: Alan Stern , Will Deacon , "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org > >>>> 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, by saying "Yes:", do you mean you have something else to be added? > > > > Indeed (examples in the trimmed text). "examples" of "concrete suggestions" (pros or cons) to amend the log. > > So, you mean just amending commit log does not work for you? I can't really answer this...; let's see the revisited log first. Andrea > > > > > > >> I don't think you do, but want to make sure. > >> > >> I'm a bit surprised to see all you wanted was the amendment of the > >> commit log... > > > > Well, I said that it was my only current constructive argument... > > This thread is getting quite hard for me to follow... > > Akira > > > > > Andrea > > > > > >> > >> Akira > >> > >>> > >>> Andrea > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Alan > >>>> > >> > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f68.google.com ([209.85.208.68]:45315 "EHLO mail-ed1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726335AbeIETzP (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2018 15:55:15 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f68.google.com with SMTP id p52-v6so6375221eda.12 for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2018 08:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:24:18 +0200 From: Andrea Parri Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC LKMM 1/7] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire Message-ID: <20180905152418.GA8874@andrea> References: <20180904081144.GA4137@andrea> <20180905072151.GA3185@andrea> <50f0a7a7-0521-f833-34c3-132ce57dd777@gmail.com> <20180905150042.GA8820@andrea> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: Alan Stern , Will Deacon , "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr Message-ID: <20180905152418.w9Pxi5usziukBDM8H_KR8q7aJD73GrkyzGG_EsKyHXk@z> > >>>> 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, by saying "Yes:", do you mean you have something else to be added? > > > > Indeed (examples in the trimmed text). "examples" of "concrete suggestions" (pros or cons) to amend the log. > > So, you mean just amending commit log does not work for you? I can't really answer this...; let's see the revisited log first. Andrea > > > > > > >> I don't think you do, but want to make sure. > >> > >> I'm a bit surprised to see all you wanted was the amendment of the > >> commit log... > > > > Well, I said that it was my only current constructive argument... > > This thread is getting quite hard for me to follow... > > Akira > > > > > Andrea > > > > > >> > >> Akira > >> > >>> > >>> Andrea > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Alan > >>>> > >> >