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: <20190902142133.37e106af@lwn.net>
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:21:33 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        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 Mon, 02 Sep 2019 21:19:24 +0200
Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it> wrote:

> > > 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.

I don't really have a problem with "iff"; it doesn't seem like *that*
obscure a term to me.  But if you want spell it out, I guess I don't have
a problem with that.  We can change it - iff you send a patch to do it :)

Thanks,

jon