From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EE1C43387 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:57:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6E9420878 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 21:57:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726534AbfAKV5T (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:57:19 -0500 Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:44874 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1726471AbfAKV5T (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:57:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 7675 invoked by uid 2102); 11 Jan 2019 16:57:17 -0500 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Jan 2019 16:57:17 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:57:17 -0500 (EST) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@iolanthe.rowland.org To: "Paul E. McKenney" cc: Andrea Parri , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC LKMM 7/7] tools/memory-model: Dynamically check SRCU lock-to-unlock matching In-Reply-To: <20190111214446.GL1215@linux.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:20:45AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > > I'm not all that exited about spreading version requirements in the > > > > source: we report this requirement in our README, and apparently we > > > > already struggle to keep this information up-to-date. So what about > > > > squashing something like the below (assume that 7.52 will be released > > > > by the time this patch hit mainline; if this won't be the case, we > > > > may consider using the development version 7.51+6)? notice that this > > > > also removes an (obsolete, at this point) comment from lock.cat. > > > > > > Sounds like a very good point to me! > > > > > > Should have pointers in the various files to the README file? Or maybe > > > get people used to using scripting that checks versions? Or maybe > > > after answering questions for some time, people will get used to > > > checking versions? > > > > As discussed off-list: I have no strong opinion on this regard, well, > > except that I think we ought to fix the README, somehow (consider my > > diff below as a first proposal). Akira actually preceded me on this > > and suggested another solution [1]. > > > > Andrea > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/04d15c18-d210-e3da-01e2-483eff135cb7@gmail.com > > My concern with this approach is that it seems to me to implicitly promise > that herd will provide backwards compatibility, which is a real pain to > test, let alone to provide. Yes, the latest version of herd probably > supports latest mainline, but will five-years-from-now herd work correctly > on the .bell, .cat, and .def files from current mainline? The README file can say something along the lines of: Herd version 7.52 (later versions may or may not be compatible). Herd can be downloaded from... Alan