From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760310AbcDMMrE (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:47:04 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:34246 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757460AbcDMMrC (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:47:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:46:51 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com, SeongJae Park Subject: Re: [PATCH memory-barriers.txt 2/7] documentation: Fix missed renaming: s/lock/acquire Message-ID: <20160413124651.GL2906@worktop> References: <20160412155228.GA27257@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1460476375-27803-2-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1460476375-27803-2-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 08:52:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > From: SeongJae Park > > Terms `lock` and `unlock` have changed to `acquire` / `release` by > commit 2e4f5382d12a441b5cccfdde00308df15c2ce300 ("locking/doc: Rename > LOCK/UNLOCK to ACQUIRE/RELEASE"). However, the commit missed to change > the table of content. This commit changes the missed parts. > Also, section name `Acquiring functions` is not appropriate for the > section because the section is saying about lock in actual. This commit > changes the name to more appropriate name, `Lock acquisition functions`. > True, because of this ppc thing :/ If we get PPC to switch to RCsc locks, there actually is a difference again. Given the current state I'm not sure how much we should care, but there's a fundamental difference between things like load-acquire and acquiring a lock, in that the lock-acquire must also very much imply a store. In any case, these are jet-lagged ramblings, feel free to ignore :-)