From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:48:02 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1392183564.18779.2187.camel@triegel.csb> <20140212180739.GB4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <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=UTF-8 Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: To: Paul McKenney 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 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"). Linus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:53255 "EHLO mail-vc0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751431AbaBOCsD (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:48:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1392183564.18779.2187.camel@triegel.csb> <20140212180739.GB4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <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> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:48:02 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework From: Linus Torvalds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Paul McKenney 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: <20140215024802.xn7SDzgZCl95R2NEqrT2qOpW_4ZMxPUKs4qv4hqyqiY@z> 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"). Linus