From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752218AbaBOG6y (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Feb 2014 01:58:54 -0500 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:43529 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751692AbaBOG6v (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Feb 2014 01:58:51 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:58:43 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Torvald Riegel , Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , Ramana Radhakrishnan , David Howells , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "mingo@kernel.org" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework Message-ID: <20140215065843.GA5016@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1392321837.18779.3249.camel@triegel.csb> <20140214020144.GO4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1392352981.18779.3800.camel@triegel.csb> <20140214172920.GQ4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140215020815.GS4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140215063543.GU4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140215063543.GU4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14021506-0928-0000-0000-000006A8489D Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:35:44PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 06:48:02PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > > > > > > And conversely, the C11 people can walk away from us too. But if they > > > can't make us happy (and by "make us happy", I really mean no stupid > > > games on our part) I personally think they'll have a stronger > > > standard, and a real use case, and real arguments. I'm assuming they > > > want that. > > > > I should have somebody who proof-reads my emails before I send them out. > > > > I obviously meant "if they *can* make us happy" (not "can't"). > > Understood. My next step is to take a more detailed look at the piece > of the standard that should support RCU. Depending on how that turns > out, I might look at other parts of the standard vs. Linux's atomics > and memory-ordering needs. Should be interesting. ;-) And perhaps a better way to represent the roles is that I am not the buyer, but rather the purchasing agent for the -potential- buyer. -You- are of course the potential buyer. If I were to see myself as the buyer, then I must confess that the concerns you implicitly expressed in your prior email would be all too well-founded! Thanx, Paul