Re: [PATCH] doc:lock: remove reference to clever use of read-write lock

[Ingo Molnar]

* Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Saturday, August 31, 2019 4:43:44 PM CEST Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 15:41:16 +0200
> > 
> > Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >  several CPU's and you want to use spinlocks you can potentially use
> > > 
> > > -cheaper versions of the spinlocks. IFF you know that the spinlocks are
> > > +cheaper versions of the spinlocks. If you know that the spinlocks are
> > > 
> > >  never used in interrupt handlers, you can use the non-irq versions::
> > I suspect that was not actually a typo; "iff" is a way for the
> > mathematically inclined to say "if and only if".
> > 
> > jon
> 
> I learned something new today :)
> 
> I am not used to the mathematical English jargon. It make sense, but then I 
> would replace it with "If and only if": for clarity.

While it's used in a number of places and it's pretty common wording 
overall in the literature, I agree that we should probably change this in 
locking API user facing documentation.

If you change it, please do it in both places it's used.

Thanks,

	Ingo