From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model] Add s390.{cfg,cat} Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:33:16 -0700 Message-ID: <20180329013316.GU3675@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20180328134232.GA29274@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180328175136.GL4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180328175136.GL4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Alan Stern , schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, parri.andrea@gmail.com, will.deacon@arm.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:51:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:01:25AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > I don't quite see the point of this. You're not suggesting that we > > have one Linux Kernel Memory Consistency Model for s390 and another > > one for all the other architectures, are you? > > > > If the idea is merely to provide a herd model for s390 then it should > > go into the DIY repository, not into the LKMM repository. > > I suspect the use-case was validating s390 arch code which might not > have followed all the regular linux rules because they know its TSO. But > yes, I'm tempted to agree that even arch specific code ought to follow > the regular rules, just to avoid completely messing up the reader. Another use case is testing an s390 .cat file without having to teach herd about s390 assembly. ;-) Thanx, Paul