Re: [PATCH 11/18] seqcount: Introduce raw_write_seqcount_barrier()
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Thu Jun 18 2015 - 06:40:40 EST
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:40:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> In what retarded use-case do unasked for speculative writes even make any sense
> beyond as a sadistic tool to make parallel, threaded code even more fragile??
So what worries me most is the "Takeaways" from the document:
Those read like a 'fuck you' to 30 years of concurrent code in C.
Sure, its nice and all that they finally have something that's
standardized, and this might be an option for new projects (in reality
it might only really be an option in another 5-10 years).
But the active encouragement to break existing code is utterly fucked.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/