From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750947AbcDMPT4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:19:56 -0400 Received: from e19.ny.us.ibm.com ([129.33.205.209]:37329 "EHLO e19.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750699AbcDMPTz (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:19:55 -0400 X-IBM-Helo: d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:29:17 -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, SeongJae Park Subject: Re: [PATCH memory-barriers.txt 2/7] documentation: Fix missed renaming: s/lock/acquire Message-ID: <20160413142917.GB3614@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20160412155228.GA27257@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1460476375-27803-2-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160413124651.GL2906@worktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160413124651.GL2906@worktop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16041315-0057-0000-0000-000004069C8D Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:46:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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. On that, I must defer to Michael Ellerman. > 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. Agreed, even given PPC's current lock implementation, load-acquire and lock-acquire are at best similar, not identical. That said, one strong similarity is the effect on ordering. > In any case, these are jet-lagged ramblings, feel free to ignore :-) I think we went in opposite directions. I was in UK last week. ;-) Thanx, Paul