From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=3RyhvndkYXIJ1TjhDBBI3XemH1fUlXm3rtUR09A2z24=; b=hBCz/j7/6wFbnwgshpwpZxKJYbmEVSuIbndvFeg6tACC3rrEM2ozT/lCvegM1utA0J D0YFU5WTK5MMdrEYufo5RKAmNFOqE6T6zplWTqJ8afJi2ZNl8xMRtPVc4KsgXAShmpTx LgqRj0X5N1jjIrjEnXzSsLZit8epRFS37CYKPypNrRB5HnhzQl5uRNLUASMTvJnWzeJ4 VBOLHVCKPBP8Y5si9QtFETT2xkiQUEbn1IAhbrwhOPa5GZBlbaYO/1nwtsYuj0PN1Gcd GX1eaugcS/YCh2CY20mosBhSec9NIuZF3eoFxgVIuUsHQTHUZ6OIZkSixbunViKsQcJg CcSA== Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 08:46:38 +0800 From: Junchang Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH] datastruct.tex: fix some minor typos Message-ID: <20200214004636.GB5058@PhD> References: <20200212143457.GA25828@PhD> <47d5dcd4-64e5-57fa-4834-26d077712de6@gmail.com> <20200213191919.GH2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200213191919.GH2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Akira Yokosawa , perfbook@vger.kernel.org, junchangwang@gmail.com List-ID: Hi Paul, On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:19:19AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:28:24AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> Hi, Junchang, >> >> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 22:35:15 +0800, Junchang Wang wrote: >> > Signed-off-by: Junchang Wang >> > --- >> > >> > Hi Paul, >> > >> > I'm reading the latest version of the perfbook and this patch contains fixes to >> > some typos in Section Data Structures. Hope it helps. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > --Junchang >> > >> > -- >> > datastruct/datastruct.tex | 8 ++++---- >> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/datastruct/datastruct.tex b/datastruct/datastruct.tex >> > index 4b62471..e21952b 100644 >> > --- a/datastruct/datastruct.tex >> > +++ b/datastruct/datastruct.tex >> > @@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ Of course, it is quite possible that the differences in lookup performance >> > are affected by the differences in update rates. >> > One way to check this is to artificially throttle the update rates of >> > per-bucket locking and hazard pointers to match that of RCU. >> > -Doing so does not significantly improve the lookup performace of >> > +Doing so does not significantly improve the lookup performance of >> > per-bucket locking, nor does it close the gap between hazard pointers >> > and RCU. >> > However, removing the read-side memory barriers from hazard pointers >> > @@ -800,8 +800,8 @@ scalability, external consistency, or all of the above. >> > \section{Non-Partitionable Data Structures} >> > \label{sec:datastruct:Non-Partitionable Data Structures} >> > % >> > -\epigraph{Undertake somthing difficult, otherwise you will never grow.} >> > - {\emph{Ronald E.~Osburn}} >> > +\epigraph{Undertake something difficult, otherwise you will never grow.} >> > + {\emph{Ronald E.~Osborn}} >> > >> > \begin{figure}[tb] >> > \centering >> > @@ -1063,7 +1063,7 @@ Otherwise, a concurrent resize operation has already distributed this >> > bucket, so line~\lnref{new_hashtbl} proceeds to the new hash table, >> > line~\lnref{get_newbkt} selects the bucket corresponding to the key, >> > and line~\lnref{acq_newbkt} acquires the bucket's lock. >> > -\Clnref{lsp1b}{lsp1e} store the bucket pointer and >> > +\Clnrefrange{lsp1b}{lsp1e} store the bucket pointer and >> >> Thanks for catching this! > >And from me as well! Queued and pushed, thank you! > Thank you for writing this great book. I'm very happy that I can help :-) >> As far as I see, there is no other error in the use of \clnrefrange/\crefrange >> at the moment. >> To prevent similar typos in the future, I'll add a check of this pattern somewhere >> in the build script. > >Looking forward to it! > >> PS: >> >> The email address in the From: field does not match the SOB tag. >> Is this intentional? > >I made the Signed-off-by: field match the From: field. This can be >changed if need be. > I'll use the new email address (junchang2020@gmail.com) in my Signed-off-by message in the future. So it's not necessary for you to change what you have done. Sorry for confusing you and Akira. Thanks, --Junchang > Thanx, Paul > >> > pointer-set index into their respective fields in the >> > \co{ht_lock_state} structure, which again communicates this information to >> > \co{hashtab_add()}, \co{hashtab_del()}, and \co{hashtab_unlock_mod()}. >> >