[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171110073053.qh4nhpl26i47gbiv@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:30:53 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/lockdep: Revise
Documentation/locking/crossrelease.txt
* Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
> Event C depends on event A.
> Event A depends on event B.
> Event B depends on event C.
>
> - NOTE: Precisely speaking, a dependency is one between whether a
> - waiter for an event can be woken up and whether another waiter for
> - another event can be woken up. However from now on, we will describe
> - a dependency as if it's one between an event and another event for
> - simplicity.
Why was this explanation removed?
> -Lockdep tries to detect a deadlock by checking dependencies created by
> -lock operations, acquire and release. Waiting for a lock corresponds to
> -waiting for an event, and releasing a lock corresponds to triggering an
> -event in the previous section.
> +Lockdep tries to detect a deadlock by checking circular dependencies
> +created by lock operations, acquire and release, which are wait and
> +event respectively.
What? You changed a readable paragraph into an unreadable one.
Sorry, this text needs to be acked by someone with good English skills, and I
don't have the time right now to fix it all up. Please send minimal, obvious
typo/grammar fixes only.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists