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

[Andrea Parri]

> >>>> 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?
> > 
> > Indeed (examples in the trimmed text).

"examples" of "concrete suggestions" (pros or cons) to amend the log.


> 
> So, you mean just amending commit log does not work for you?

I can't really answer this...; let's see the revisited log first.

  Andrea


> 
> > 
> > 
> >> 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...
> > 
> > Well, I said that it was my only current constructive argument...
> 
> This thread is getting quite hard for me to follow...
> 
>    Akira
> 
> > 
> >   Andrea
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >>   Akira
> >>
> >>>
> >>>   Andrea
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Alan
> >>>>
> >>
>