[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2216492.xyESGPMPG3@pcbe13614>
Date:   Mon, 02 Sep 2019 09:01:26 +0200
From:   Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc:lock: remove reference to clever use of read-write lock
On Saturday, August 31, 2019 4:43:44 PM CEST Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 15:41:16 +0200
> 
> Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it> wrote:
> >  several CPU's and you want to use spinlocks you can potentially use
> > 
> > -cheaper versions of the spinlocks. IFF you know that the spinlocks are
> > +cheaper versions of the spinlocks. If you know that the spinlocks are
> > 
> >  never used in interrupt handlers, you can use the non-irq versions::
> I suspect that was not actually a typo; "iff" is a way for the
> mathematically inclined to say "if and only if".
> 
> jon
I learned something new today :)
I am not used to the mathematical English jargon. It make sense, but then I 
would replace it with "If and only if": for clarity.
-- 
Federico Vaga
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
