* [PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Fix a typo in CPU MEMORY BARRIERS section
@ 2020-09-09 6:53 Fox Chen
2020-09-11 14:02 ` Will Deacon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Fox Chen @ 2020-09-09 6:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stern, parri.andrea, will, peterz, boqun.feng, npiggin, dhowells,
j.alglave, luc.maranget, paulmck, akiyks, dlustig, joel, corbet
Cc: Fox Chen, linux-kernel, linux-arch, linux-doc, gregkh
Commit 39323c6 smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(): update Documentation
has a typo in CPU MEORY BARRIERS section:
"RMW functions that do not imply are memory barrier are ..." should be
"RMW functions that do not imply a memory barrier are ...".
This patch fixes this typo.
Signed-off-by: Fox Chen <foxhlchen@gmail.com>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 96186332e5f4..20b8a7b30320 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1870,7 +1870,7 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
These are for use with atomic RMW functions that do not imply memory
barriers, but where the code needs a memory barrier. Examples for atomic
- RMW functions that do not imply are memory barrier are e.g. add,
+ RMW functions that do not imply a memory barrier are e.g. add,
subtract, (failed) conditional operations, _relaxed functions,
but not atomic_read or atomic_set. A common example where a memory
barrier may be required is when atomic ops are used for reference
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Fix a typo in CPU MEMORY BARRIERS section
2020-09-09 6:53 [PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Fix a typo in CPU MEMORY BARRIERS section Fox Chen
@ 2020-09-11 14:02 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-14 15:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2020-09-11 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fox Chen
Cc: stern, parri.andrea, peterz, boqun.feng, npiggin, dhowells,
j.alglave, luc.maranget, paulmck, akiyks, dlustig, joel, corbet,
linux-kernel, linux-arch, linux-doc, gregkh
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 02:53:40PM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> Commit 39323c6 smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(): update Documentation
> has a typo in CPU MEORY BARRIERS section:
> "RMW functions that do not imply are memory barrier are ..." should be
> "RMW functions that do not imply a memory barrier are ...".
>
> This patch fixes this typo.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fox Chen <foxhlchen@gmail.com>
> ---
> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> index 96186332e5f4..20b8a7b30320 100644
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -1870,7 +1870,7 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
>
> These are for use with atomic RMW functions that do not imply memory
> barriers, but where the code needs a memory barrier. Examples for atomic
> - RMW functions that do not imply are memory barrier are e.g. add,
> + RMW functions that do not imply a memory barrier are e.g. add,
> subtract, (failed) conditional operations, _relaxed functions,
> but not atomic_read or atomic_set. A common example where a memory
> barrier may be required is when atomic ops are used for reference
The document remains unreadable, but this is still worth fixing!
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Fix a typo in CPU MEMORY BARRIERS section
2020-09-11 14:02 ` Will Deacon
@ 2020-09-14 15:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2020-09-14 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon
Cc: Fox Chen, stern, parri.andrea, peterz, boqun.feng, npiggin,
dhowells, j.alglave, luc.maranget, akiyks, dlustig, joel, corbet,
linux-kernel, linux-arch, linux-doc, gregkh
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 03:02:19PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 02:53:40PM +0800, Fox Chen wrote:
> > Commit 39323c6 smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(): update Documentation
> > has a typo in CPU MEORY BARRIERS section:
> > "RMW functions that do not imply are memory barrier are ..." should be
> > "RMW functions that do not imply a memory barrier are ...".
> >
> > This patch fixes this typo.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fox Chen <foxhlchen@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > index 96186332e5f4..20b8a7b30320 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > @@ -1870,7 +1870,7 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
> >
> > These are for use with atomic RMW functions that do not imply memory
> > barriers, but where the code needs a memory barrier. Examples for atomic
> > - RMW functions that do not imply are memory barrier are e.g. add,
> > + RMW functions that do not imply a memory barrier are e.g. add,
> > subtract, (failed) conditional operations, _relaxed functions,
> > but not atomic_read or atomic_set. A common example where a memory
> > barrier may be required is when atomic ops are used for reference
>
> The document remains unreadable, but this is still worth fixing!
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Queued for v5.11, thank you both!
Thanx, Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-09-14 15:34 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-09-09 6:53 [PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Fix a typo in CPU MEMORY BARRIERS section Fox Chen
2020-09-11 14:02 ` Will Deacon
2020-09-14 15:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).