[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190222112128.GA7213@andrea>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:21:28 +0100
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tools/memory-model: Remove (dep ; rfi) from ppo
> What I do object to is a model that's weaker than any possible sane
> hardware.
Not the first time I hear you calling this out. And inevitably, every
time, other slogans come to my mind: "C is not an assembly language",
"No features (ordering) without users", ...
For the record, I won't try to push this patch further; I also have no
plans to touch herd7 internals in order to add the ad-hoc flag for the
(dep ; rfi) thing. (Maybe others will/can step in here.)
In the meantime, the hope (admittedly, probably vain) is that this RFC
could serve as a further warning or as a reference to those developers
who are quivering to use (dep ; rfi): enjoy it, be careful.
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists