From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694D47D90D for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:21:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727123AbfIBUVf (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:21:35 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:56534 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726518AbfIBUVf (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:21:35 -0400 Received: from lwn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4487530D; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:21:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:21:33 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Federico Vaga Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Will Deacon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc:lock: remove reference to clever use of read-write lock Message-ID: <20190902142133.37e106af@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <4627860.yBeiQmOknq@harkonnen> References: <20190831134116.25417-1-federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it> <2216492.xyESGPMPG3@pcbe13614> <20190902181010.GA35858@gmail.com> <4627860.yBeiQmOknq@harkonnen> Organization: LWN.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 02 Sep 2019 21:19:24 +0200 Federico Vaga wrote: > > > I am not used to the mathematical English jargon. It make sense, but then > > > I > > > would replace it with "If and only if": for clarity. > > > > While it's used in a number of places and it's pretty common wording > > overall in the literature, I agree that we should probably change this in > > locking API user facing documentation. > > I would say not only in locking/. The argument is valid for the entire > Documentation/. I wait for Jon's opinion before proceeding. I don't really have a problem with "iff"; it doesn't seem like *that* obscure a term to me. But if you want spell it out, I guess I don't have a problem with that. We can change it - iff you send a patch to do it :) Thanks, jon