Re: [PATCH memory-model 3/3] tools/memory-model: Add KCSAN LF mentorship session citation

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 09:52:38AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 00:14, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Add a citation to Marco's LF mentorship session presentation entitled
> > "The Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer"
> >
> > [ paulmck: Apply Marco Elver feedback. ]
> >
> > Reported-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Acked-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks for adding.

I will apply your ack on my next rebase, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> > Cc: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@xxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt | 10 +++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt
> > index 65778222183e3..f531b0837356b 100644
> > --- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt
> > +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt
> > @@ -6,7 +6,8 @@ normal accesses to shared memory, that is "normal" as in accesses that do
> >  not use read-modify-write atomic operations.  It also describes how to
> >  document these accesses, both with comments and with special assertions
> >  processed by the Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer (KCSAN).  This discussion
> > -builds on an earlier LWN article [1].
> > +builds on an earlier LWN article [1] and Linux Foundation mentorship
> > +session [2].
> >
> >
> >  ACCESS-MARKING OPTIONS
> > @@ -31,7 +32,7 @@ example:
> >         WRITE_ONCE(a, b + data_race(c + d) + READ_ONCE(e));
> >
> >  Neither plain C-language accesses nor data_race() (#1 and #2 above) place
> > -any sort of constraint on the compiler's choice of optimizations [2].
> > +any sort of constraint on the compiler's choice of optimizations [3].
> >  In contrast, READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() (#3 and #4 above) restrict the
> >  compiler's use of code-motion and common-subexpression optimizations.
> >  Therefore, if a given access is involved in an intentional data race,
> > @@ -594,5 +595,8 @@ REFERENCES
> >  [1] "Concurrency bugs should fear the big bad data-race detector (part 2)"
> >      https://lwn.net/Articles/816854/
> >
> > -[2] "Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?"
> > +[2] "The Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer"
> > +    https://www.linuxfoundation.org/webinars/the-kernel-concurrency-sanitizer
> > +
> > +[3] "Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?"
> >      https://lwn.net/Articles/793253/
> > --
> > 2.40.1
> >