[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1802011026250.1677-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:26:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
cc: will.deacon@....com, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<boqun.feng@...il.com>, <npiggin@...il.com>, <dhowells@...hat.com>,
<j.alglave@....ac.uk>, <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tools/memory-model: clarify the origin/scope of the
tool name
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, Andrea Parri wrote:
> Ingo pointed out that:
>
> "The "memory model" name is overly generic, ambiguous and somewhat
> misleading, as we usually mean the virtual memory layout/model
> when we say "memory model". GCC too uses it in that sense [...]"
>
> Make it clearer that, in the context of tools/memory-model/, the term
> "memory-model" is used as shorthand for "memory consistency model" by
> calling out this convention in tools/memory-model/README.
>
> Stick to the full name in sources' headers and for the subsystem name.
>
> Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
For both patches:
Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists