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=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, FSL_HELO_FAKE,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 C6C177D90D for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 18:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726676AbfIBSKP (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:10:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com ([209.85.128.66]:51875 "EHLO mail-wm1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726506AbfIBSKP (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:10:15 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id k1so15480038wmi.1; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 11:10:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=vDUaJApxfkNhR6vhz6RrOHesiiSeGJbPpZ0PxPybk/I=; b=X2KKFYMCm/kPAAybfVW+JyM12W8hl+Uuo1n8mKn/rzA7LzWsHHSQA7xH/fVkWWzDGQ FngagQeC/98AzdbGqqGS31CY9XrdB/EAZC4eaeudzzJ+Mp1xSqkC0QDTh1WRwnzeYsMK 2JeNdEUWAPgUTWrG4GGn2rDlTSIv+YKvXBQcX9xoIbwkrbJgjh3AwFSWTcYDncochdG2 6Vyi/AakJtGrUSHWxfhHbk00+qsazqOCb+6rPkDAvDQ/n3CPu3oTFPdd99lproWciZs0 uh3UKoHaLH47LxWGCMzQN8UV9viJvdvvB3X46llQDKnaY4YX98QagxcrKXJc0buQUlfZ Kzsg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=vDUaJApxfkNhR6vhz6RrOHesiiSeGJbPpZ0PxPybk/I=; b=fMkiy8Mks7PEzai81fFyfmob9UeXsN+LhcjS7lKsikuy6qNHuColBNgup1SlKcfqUT B3re5fJX+S7XEoWT8nLcQHq/f9kw7wiUZhYtq4n3DXWKCYPELCUIan7tI+woWrZHWP3m NlBEwSqdmJTOinWh+vTgEEc1GT5IFDmy5ZOH6AZ4pOddIdqdAsDcYBQzZnrgSKdK9NZb 5f2NC++twiX0rUhDjXXpEq1tcqY0O1BzlbLX7BLzds9d5buqecTwbD7CFw3x4itTxn3W ZEPDFhifmeyglZmMrOG6B41MMA0Ssbv3XL3LUX43cH9WhdDC9GRn5CXpzNtbnE5XqYnm Iwtw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVYVYn1qAJZorHNNCM+OiDaY2H78dEyWZahIhBPVeNdvFffk7Rz QSBcPQj6A6sByb3ct/jc9FY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxO9TEqstUE7hLdlfJ+mMtY+H2+e2SfFBVFtOUhNn1MKcufFoTLuu3znyHThDv+TE/BULRZ3g== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:ed05:: with SMTP id l5mr12399414wmh.21.1567447813348; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 11:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com (2E8B0CD5.catv.pool.telekom.hu. [46.139.12.213]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b144sm33844070wmb.3.2019.09.02.11.10.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 02 Sep 2019 11:10:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:10:10 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Federico Vaga Cc: Jonathan Corbet , 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: <20190902181010.GA35858@gmail.com> References: <20190831134116.25417-1-federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it> <20190831084344.6fd7c039@lwn.net> <2216492.xyESGPMPG3@pcbe13614> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2216492.xyESGPMPG3@pcbe13614> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org * Federico Vaga wrote: > On Saturday, August 31, 2019 4:43:44 PM CEST Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 15:41:16 +0200 > > > > Federico Vaga wrote: > > > several CPU's and you want to use spinlocks you can potentially use > > > > > > -cheaper versions of the spinlocks. IFF you know that the spinlocks are > > > +cheaper versions of the spinlocks. If you know that the spinlocks are > > > > > > never used in interrupt handlers, you can use the non-irq versions:: > > I suspect that was not actually a typo; "iff" is a way for the > > mathematically inclined to say "if and only if". > > > > jon > > I learned something new today :) > > 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. If you change it, please do it in both places it's used. Thanks, Ingo