[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140823201716.GA2052@p183.telecom.by>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 23:17:17 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: Ganesh Rapolu <ganesh.rapolu@...mail.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DOCUMENTATION: Fixed typo in an example in
memory-barriers.txt
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 11:01:01AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 08/22/14 23:05, Ganesh Rapolu wrote:
> > In the first example in the memory-barriers.txt file, CPU 2 is assigned to
> > run (x = B; y = A;). However, the rest of the example proceeds as if CPU 2 had been
> > running (x = A; y = B;) as shown by the descriptions of the possible executions:
> >
> > STORE A=3, STORE B=4, x=LOAD A->3, y=LOAD B->4
> > STORE A=3, STORE B=4, y=LOAD B->4, x=LOAD A->3
> > STORE A=3, x=LOAD A->3, STORE B=4, y=LOAD B->4
> > STORE A=3, x=LOAD A->3, y=LOAD B->2, STORE B=4
> > STORE A=3, y=LOAD B->2, STORE B=4, x=LOAD A->3
> > STORE A=3, y=LOAD B->2, x=LOAD A->3, STORE B=4
> > STORE B=4, STORE A=3, x=LOAD A->3, y=LOAD B->4
> > STORE B=4, ...
> > ...
> >
> > The change was merely to make the inital evironment consistent with what happens in the
> > rest of the example.
so change the rest of the example
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists