Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 03:16:33PM +0000, Mark Batty wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Thanks for the document. I'm looking forward to reading the bits about
> dependency chains in Linux.

And I am looking forward to your thoughts on those bits!

> > One point of confusion for me...  Example 4 says "language must allow".
> > Shouldn't that be "language is permitted to allow"?
> 
> When we say "allow", we mean that the optimised execution should be
> allowed by the specification, and Implicitly, the unoptimised
> execution should remain allowed too. We want to be concrete about what
> the language specification allows, and that's why we say "must". It is
> not to disallow the unoptimised execution.

OK, got it!

							Thanx, Paul

> > Seems like an
> > implementation is always within its rights to avoid an optimization if
> > its implementation prevents it from safely detecting the oppportunity
> > for that optimization.
> 
> That's right.
> 
> - Mark
> 
> 
> > Or am I missing something here?
> >
> >                                                         Thanx, Paul
> >
> 

--
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/