[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200720164850.GF119549@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:48:50 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.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>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: document the "one-time init" pattern
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 09:04:34AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 2. If we were to say "unlock" instead of "release", consistency
> would demand that we also say "lock" instead of "acquire".
> But "lock" is subtlely different than "acquire", and there is
> a history of people requesting further divergence.
This, acquire/release are RCpc, while (with the exception of Power)
LOCK/UNLOCK are RCsc.
( Or did we settle on RCtso for our release/acquire order? I have vague
memories of a long-ish thread, but seem to have forgotten the outcome,
if any. )
Lots of subtlety and head-aches right about there. Anyway, it would be
awesome if we can get Power into the RCsc locking camp :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists