From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:16464 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161072AbcG1RlC (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:41:02 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u6SHd94p094035 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:41:01 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.152]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 24fj2n5y3u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:41:01 -0400 Received: from localhost by e34.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:41:00 -0600 Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.23]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165A43E4006C for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:40:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u6SHeuNh50790450 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:40:56 GMT Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u6SHeu7j013696 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:40:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:40:57 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: Some more feedback on Chapter 9 Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20160728174057.GS3873@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: perfbook-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: perfbook@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:06:22PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > Hi Paul, > > There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback. > I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches. > > * At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form > "Authors: ...". > But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit. > I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary. > There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is > no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been > written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would > be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1. Good point! I am guessing that these predated \OriginallyPublished{}, and that I didn't get around to fixing them properly. I have now fixed them. > * Position of Quick Quiz 9.44 looks a little premature. SRCU is mentioned > just after the Quick Quiz. Good catch, moved. > * The 2nd sentence of Section 9.5.4.4 ends as "... in the companion article." > This seems like a vestige of its origin in LWN. Should be fixed to match > the context. Now it is "Section~\ref{sec:defer:RCU Usage}", good eyes! > * In the introduction of Section 9.5.5, understanding of the whole Chapter 9 > is listed in the prerequisite for the "toy" implementation. I suppose > recursion is not intended here. You know, that is strangely appropriate, now that you mention it! ;-) But how about the following? Nevertheless, you will need a thorough understanding of Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well as the previous portions of Chapter 9 for even these toy RCU implementations to be easily understandable. > * Also in the introduction of Section 9.5.5, Section 9.5.5.2 is not mentioned. Fixed! Now "Section 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9". > * (Typo) In the 2nd paragraph of Section 9.7, there is a redundant "can" in > "... so that updates can can operate locally, ...". > (Yes, I can submit the fix of this one as a patch. If you want me to do so, > please let me know.) I fixed it with your Reported-by. And here is the Youtube video corresponding to that particular typo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Diu2N8TGKA > * (Apart from Chapter 9) In Section 14.2.10.1, there are four instances of > $\dagger$ for introducing notes. I'm wondering if they can be converted > to footnotes. I'm not sure where they should be placed in the text, though. Odd. Those were there in the initial git commit. I am removing the $\dagger$ commands and thus letting them be normal paragraphs. > I said earlier there were a few issues, but in the end there are a quite a few. > > I don't mind if some (or all) of them be taken care of later after the upcoming > release. They were all reasonably easy, so might as well do them now. Famous last words. ;-) I commited and pushed them all. Thanx, Paul