Re: [PATCH v2] tools: memory-model: Make plain accesses carry dependencies

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 12:52:02PM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 12:44:05PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 03:34:20PM -0500, stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 11:02:26AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 11:58:36AM +0000, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Boqun Feng [mailto:boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx] 
> > > > > Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 7:50 PM
> > > > 
> > > > > > I wonder is this patch a first step to solve the OOTA problem you reported in OSS:
> > > > > >	https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/osseu2022/e1/oss-eu22-jonas.pdf
> > > > > > If so maybe it's better to put the link in the commit log I think.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's not directly related to that specific problem, it does solve some other OOTA issues though.
> > > > > If you think we should link to the talk, there's also a video with slightly more updated slides from the actual talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDKhIxKhoQ
> > > > > do you think I should link to both then?
> > > > 
> > > > It is not hard for me to add that in if people believe that it should be
> > > > included.  But default is lazy in this case.  ;-)
> > > 
> > > I don't think there's any need to mention that video in the commit log.  
> > > It's an introductory talk, and it's pretty safe to assume that anyone 
> > > reading the commit because they are interested in the LKMM in great 
> > > detail is already beyond the introductory level.
> > > 
> > > On the other hand, it wouldn't hurt to include a Link: tag to an 
> > > appropriate message in this email thread.  (I leave it up to Paul to 
> > > decide which message is most "appropriate" -- there may not be a good 
> > > candidate, because a lot of the messages were not CC'ed to LKML.)
> > 
> > For this approach, I would add this:
> > 
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/4262e55407294a5989e766bc4dc48293@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > I could of course do both the extra paragraph -and- the Link:.  ;-)
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> > 
> 
> I think only having Link: is fine ;-) And I agree with Alan, no need to
> mention that video.

Very good, I will add the Link: on the next rebase.

And I will even refrain from adding the URL of the infamous "why not
both" video to this email.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul