From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934919AbcDMORV (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:17:21 -0400 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:38421 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934697AbcDMORU (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:17:20 -0400 X-IBM-Helo: d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:17:38 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra 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, Davidlohr Bueso , Davidlohr Bueso Subject: Re: [PATCH memory-barriers.txt 7/7] Documentation,barriers: Mention smp_cond_acquire() Message-ID: <20160413141737.GA3614@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20160412155228.GA27257@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1460476375-27803-7-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160413125310.GM2906@worktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160413125310.GM2906@worktop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16041314-0013-0000-0000-00002B3B2E8E Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:53:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 08:52:55AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > From: Davidlohr Bueso > > > > ... do this next to smp_load_acquire when first mentioning > > ACQUIRE. While this call is briefly explained and ctrl > > dependencies are mentioned later, it does not hurt the reader. > > Ha! just when I have a patch set in RFC to change the whole thing about > :-) > > lkml.kernel.org/r/20160404122250.340636238@infradead.org Heh! I was talking to a bunch of formal-verification researchers last week, and the fact that requirements can change over time did not make them feel comfortable. ;-) Thanx, Paul