Re: [PATCH RFC LKMM 1/7] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire

[Andrea Parri]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 03:09:49PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Heh, your confusion might be the reflection of mine... ;-)  That was
> > indeed a long and not conclusive discussion (meaning there're pending
> > issues); and I cannot claim to find "arguments" such as:
> > 
> >   "More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that
> >    the LKMM should enforce ordering of writes by locking."
> > 
> > particularly helpful (I do tend to be convinced by arguments rather
> > than by opinions).  In fact, you can take the following as my only
> > current "constructive argument" against the patch [1,2]:
> > 
> >   THE COMMIT MESSAGE IS RIDICULOUS; PLEASE EXPAND ON IT, AND DO
> >   SO BY LEVERAGING BOTH PROS AND CONS OF THE APPLIED CHANGES
> 
> Do you have any concrete suggestions (i.e., some actual text) for 
> improvements to the patch description?  Earlier in your message you 
> mentioned that Will's comment:
> 
> 	LKMM offers stronger guarantees that can portably be relied upon
> 	in the codebase.
> 
> would make a good addition.  Suitably edited, it could be added to the
> description.  I can think of a few other things myself, but I'd like to 
> hear your thoughts.  Anything else?

Yes: I do sometimes have the impression that your "rules" for trimming
text in emails/replies are too aggressive...

  Andrea


> 
> Alan
>