[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200217110200.GO14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 12:02:00 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] tools/memory-model: Add a litmus test for atomic_set()
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 07:52:15AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> I agree, and thanks for the suggestion! And I change the sentence in
> atomic_t.txt with:
>
> A note for the implementation of atomic_set{}() is that it
> cannot break the atomicity of the RMW ops.
>
> , since I think that part of the doc is more about the suggestion to
> anyone who want to implement the atomic_set(). Peter, is that OK to you?
Sure.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists