Re: [PATCH 0/3] tools/memory-model, Documentation/litmus-test: Sort out location of litmus test and README

[Joel Fernandes]

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:39 AM Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:19:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 08:19:36AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 08:50:45PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>> I think on top of this patch, I'd like to add a reference to the to the
> >>>> litmus test in tools/memory-model/ from Documentation/rcu/.
> >>>
> >>> Sounds reasonable to me. But for most people, it never changes its location.
> >>> Please find inline comments below.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just to mention my rationale for Documentation/litmus-tests/rcu/, I was
> >>>> basically looking for a central place for RCU related litmus tests in the
> >>>> kernel sources and the idea of this new directory came up.
> >>>>
> >>>> For Akira's series,
> >>>> Acked-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you!
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And could we add the following patch on top of Akira's series so we still
> >>>> maintain a reference to the moved RCU test?>
> >>>> ---8<-----------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> From 52fdb57551cc769d8bd690f4f2b22de36ddece99 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>>> From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 22:06:46 -0400
> >>>> Subject: [PATCH] docs: litmus-tests: Clarify about the RCU pre-initialization
> >>>>  test
> >>>>
> >>>> Since this test was moved to tools/memory-model/, make sure that it is
> >>>> at least referenced from Documentation/litmus-tests/'s README.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  Documentation/litmus-tests/README | 6 ++++--
> >>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/litmus-tests/README b/Documentation/litmus-tests/README
> >>>> index ac0b270b456c1..53f09e74734a4 100644
> >>>> --- a/Documentation/litmus-tests/README
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/litmus-tests/README
> >>>> @@ -11,7 +11,6 @@ tools/memory-model/README.
> >>>>
> >>>>  atomic (/atomic derectory)
> >>>>  --------------------------
> >>>> -
> >>>>  Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-stronger-than-acquire.litmus
> >>>>      Test that an atomic RMW followed by a smp_mb__after_atomic() is
> >>>>      stronger than a normal acquire: both the read and write parts of
> >>>> @@ -23,8 +22,11 @@ Atomic-RMW-ops-are-atomic-WRT-atomic_set.litmus
> >>>>
> >>>>  RCU (/rcu directory)
> >>>>  --------------------
> >>>> -
> >>>
> >>> I loosely followed the convention of ReST documents in putting these empty
> >>> lines.  But I don't mind if they are removed.
> >>>
> >>>>  RCU+sync+read.litmus
> >>>>  RCU+sync+free.litmus
> >>>>      Both the above litmus tests demonstrate the RCU grace period guarantee
> >>>>      that an RCU read-side critical section can never span a grace period.
> >>>> +
> >>>> +MP+onceassign+derefonce.litmus (moved to tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/)
> >>>
> >>> As I said above, for those who don't follow developments in the lkmm branch,
> >>> MP+onceassign+derefonce.litmus stays in tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/.
> >>> So,
> >>>
> >>> +MP+onceassign+derefonce.litmus (under tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/)
> >>>
> >>> looks better to me.
> >>
> >> Yes it stays under tools/.. but is referenced here. Sounds like you agree and
> >> the only change from my follow-up patch that you want is to change "moved to"
> >> to "under".
> >>
> >> If so, Paul do you mind applying my patch and fixing this up? Or do you want
> >> to apply Akira's 3-patch series first and then have me send you another one
> >> on top?
> >
> > Let's get something that you, Akira, and Alan are good with, then I will
> > apply that, either on top of or in place of the current commits (just
> > tell me which).
>
> OK.
> I'm submitting a patch [4/3] with Alan's suggested-by and Joel's and my
> co-developed-by tags.
> The explanation under tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README also need the same
> rewording.

Sounds good to me, thanks!!

 - Joel