From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Parri Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tools/memory-model: Remove (dep ; rfi) from ppo Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:21:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20190222112128.GA7213@andrea> References: <1550617057-4911-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> <20190220020117.GD11787@linux.ibm.com> <20190220092604.GD32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190220131456.GA3215@andrea> <20190220132714.GI32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190220132714.GI32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Alan Stern , Will Deacon , Boqun Feng , Nicholas Piggin , David Howells , Jade Alglave , Luc Maranget , Akira Yokosawa , Daniel Lustig List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org > What I do object to is a model that's weaker than any possible sane > hardware. Not the first time I hear you calling this out. And inevitably, every time, other slogans come to my mind: "C is not an assembly language", "No features (ordering) without users", ... For the record, I won't try to push this patch further; I also have no plans to touch herd7 internals in order to add the ad-hoc flag for the (dep ; rfi) thing. (Maybe others will/can step in here.) In the meantime, the hope (admittedly, probably vain) is that this RFC could serve as a further warning or as a reference to those developers who are quivering to use (dep ; rfi): enjoy it, be careful. Andrea