From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:35:44 -0800 Message-ID: <20140215063543.GU4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20140213002355.GI4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <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> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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" List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org 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. ;-) Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:37648 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751558AbaBOGfu (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Feb 2014 01:35:50 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e32.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 23:35:49 -0700 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:35:44 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework Message-ID: <20140215063543.GU4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20140213002355.GI4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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" Message-ID: <20140215063544.C2n-DESXZFdbQiCKxz-VeIEdP8H_V4BYsjxa4of5PDU@z> 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. ;-) Thanx, Paul