[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220609150339.GA3289@willie-the-truck>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:03:39 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -lkmm] docs/memory-barriers: Fix inconsistent name of
'data dependency barrier'
On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 10:34:08AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Alternatively, maybe we should be removing the historical stuff from the
> > document altogether if it's no longer needed. We don't have any occurrences
> > of read_barrier_depends() anymore, so why confuse people with it?
>
> How about relegating discussion of these barriers to a special
> "historical" or "niche architecture" section of the document? In a
> separate patch, of course.
That would work, perhaps with a little bit of commentary to say that it's
no longer relevent to the kernel sources and is provided for information
only.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists