[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180329013316.GU3675@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 18:33:16 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, 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 07:51:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:01:25AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > I don't quite see the point of this. You're not suggesting that we
> > have one Linux Kernel Memory Consistency Model for s390 and another
> > one for all the other architectures, are you?
> >
> > If the idea is merely to provide a herd model for s390 then it should
> > go into the DIY repository, not into the LKMM repository.
>
> I suspect the use-case was validating s390 arch code which might not
> have followed all the regular linux rules because they know its TSO. But
> yes, I'm tempted to agree that even arch specific code ought to follow
> the regular rules, just to avoid completely messing up the reader.
Another use case is testing an s390 .cat file without having to teach
herd about s390 assembly. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists