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: <4627860.yBeiQmOknq@harkonnen>
Date:   Mon, 02 Sep 2019 21:19:24 +0200
From:   Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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

On Monday, September 2, 2019 8:10:10 PM CEST Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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.

I would say not only in locking/. The argument is valid for the entire 
Documentation/. I wait for Jon's opinion before proceeding.

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