[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200720161236.GF1228057@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:12:36 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: document the "one-time init" pattern
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 04:39:11PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Honestly, even the term "release semantics" trips me up _every_ time.
> It's a barrier to understanding because I have to translate it into "Oh,
> he means it's like an unlock". Why can't you just say "unlock semantics"?
It's not as bad as all that; people do talk about acquiring and
releasing locks, and presumably you don't have any trouble understanding
those terms. In fact this usage is quite common -- and I believe it's
where the names "acquire semantics" and "release semantics" came from
originally.
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists