linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] doc:lock: remove reference to clever use of read-write lock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190902181010.GA35858@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:10:10 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        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


* Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it> wrote:

> 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.

While it's used in a number of places and it's pretty common wording 
overall in the literature, I agree that we should probably change this in 
locking API user facing documentation.

If you change it, please do it in both places it's used.

Thanks,

	Ingo