From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754952AbbKDD5G (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2015 22:57:06 -0500 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:33443 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751870AbbKDD5E (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2015 22:57:04 -0500 X-IBM-Helo: d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 19:57:00 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Oleg Nesterov , Linux Kernel Mailing List , boqun.feng@gmail.com, Jonathan Corbet , Michal Hocko , David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Message-ID: <20151104035700.GN29027@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20151102132901.157178466@infradead.org> <20151102134941.005198372@infradead.org> <20151102183659.GN29657@arm.com> <20151103015743.GC29027@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15110403-0017-0000-0000-00000F39930E Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 11:40:24AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Paul E. McKenney > wrote: [ . . . ] > > I am in India and my Alpha Architecture Manual is in the USA. > > I sent you a link to something that should work, and that has the section. Thank you, and yes, it clearly states that read-to-write dependencies are ordered. Color me slow and stupid. > > And they did post a clarification on the web: > > So for alpha, you trust a random web posting by a unknown person that > talks about some random problem in an application that we don't even > know what it is. In my defense, the Alpha architects pointed me at that web posting, but yes, it appears to be pushing for overly conservative safety rather than accuracy. Please accept my apologies for my confusion. Thanx, Paul