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

[Akira Yokosawa]

On 2018/09/05 09:21:51 +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> 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, by saying "Yes:", do you mean you have something else to be added?
I don't think you do, but want to make sure.

I'm a bit surprised to see all you wanted was the amendment of the
commit log...

  Akira

> 
>   Andrea
> 
> 
>>
>> Alan
>>