From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934038AbXEVOMZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2007 10:12:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756714AbXEVOMS (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2007 10:12:18 -0400 Received: from mx10.go2.pl ([193.17.41.74]:58642 "EHLO poczta.o2.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755383AbXEVOMR (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 May 2007 10:12:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:19:05 +0200 From: Jarek Poplawski To: Scott Preece Cc: David Howells , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Robert P\. J\. Day" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes Message-ID: <20070522141905.GA4772@ff.dom.local> References: <20070521135048.GB4050@ff.dom.local> <20070521094224.GB1695@ff.dom.local> <7846.1179749390@redhat.com> <12203.1179756727@redhat.com> <20070521151953.GC4050@ff.dom.local> <7b69d1470705220639w767eda81g5d4988ef09d77316@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7b69d1470705220639w767eda81g5d4988ef09d77316@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 08:39:25AM -0500, Scott Preece wrote: > On 5/21/07, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > >On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:12:07PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > >> Jarek Poplawski wrote: > >> > >> > > > - load will be directed), a data dependency barrier would be > >required to > >> > > > + load will be directed), the data dependency barrier would be > >required to > >> > > > >> > > I think that should be "a". > >> > > >> > I could only guess (it's a magic to me) - so, if it doesn't matter > >> > "A data ..." begins this paragraph... > >> > >> I see what you mean. I see it as "a data dependency barrier ..." > >though. That > >> may be because I wrote the doc, however. I wonder if "data dependency" > >should > >> be hyphenated to make it clearer. What do you think? > > > >Better don't ask. Now I'm far less decided, than yesterday. > --- > > "data-dependency barrier" would be better, assuming you mean a barrier > enforcing a data dependency. If you say "data dependency barrier" you > could also mean a "dependency barrier" implemented as a piece of data, > for instance, like a flag value in a data stream that forces > synchronization with another data stream. > Thanks! I guess, it has to wait till tomorrow (or another patch?). Regards, Jarek P.