linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 21 May 2007 15:12:07 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Robert P\. J\. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: various fixes

Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> 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?

> > > -But! CPU 2's perception of P may be updated _before_ its perception of B, thus
> > > +But (!) CPU 2's perception of P may be updated _before_ its perception of B,
> > 
> > That's a matter of taste, I think.  However, if my solution is chosen, there
> > should be an extra space after "But!".  Hmmm... actually, I think you're wrong
> > because the "But!" isn't quite part of the following sentence.
> 
> It seems logical, but it's also quite unusual, so the reader (only me?) 
> could be more interested in orthography than in the subject...

I'm emphasising a really odd feature - and it's quite an important emphasis -
so I felt that this sort of construct would interrupt the reader's normal
scanning of the text and make it clearer that this was something to take
careful note of.

It's a really horrible gotcha you have to be careful of.  It's sort of against
how you'd think things would work.

> > >  This sequence of events is committed to the memory coherence system in an order
> > >  that the rest of the system might perceive as the unordered set of { STORE A,
> > > -STORE B, STORE C } all occurring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE E
> > > -}:
> > > +STORE B, STORE C } - all occurring before the unordered set of { STORE D, STORE
> > > +E }:
> > 
> > Hmmm.  I don't think that a dash is correct here.  I think it changes the
> > meaning, by changing the way the elements are grouped.
> 
> Sure. But on the other hand such long questions probably are broken
> somewhere with pauses when reading...

I know what you mean, but it's tricky because of the subject.  Maybe a colon
after the "might perceive as"?

> > I think this changes the meaning to one I don't want.  But I'm not entirely
> > sure.  In a way the two concepts "update of perception" and "update perception"
> > are different things.  I think this can be argued either way.
> 
> So, what can I say...

How about: "Aargh!  Nonono!  The English language is completely horrible!"?


David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/