[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180328134813.GF4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:48:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: schwidefsky@...ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com,
will.deacon@....com, boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr,
akiyks@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model] Add s390.{cfg,cat}
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:42:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
>
> The prototype patch shown below provides files required to allow herd7 to
> evaluate C-language litmus tests for the multicopy-atomic TSO ordering
> provided by s390.
There really isn't anything s390 specific here is there? That is, would
this not equally work for x86 and sparc, both of which are similarly TSO
?
Given that, should this not be called TSO instead of s390 ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists