Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Mar 2016 05:51:52 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL v2 rcu/next] memory-barriers.txt commits for 4.6 |
| |
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:26:25AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > [...] In fact, in view of the no-diagrams and no-quizzes restrictions, I don't > > see a way to improve on comments in the source code. [...] > > So I don't think there's such a hard restriction: AFAICS Linus's main problem was > the dual .html and .htmlx file for what essentially are the same documents. > > If you can solve that with a single (.html?) file then I think it's all OK.
Very good!
I do have a prototype in -rcu on branch rcu/dev that uses Linus's second suggestion, namely blanking out the answer so that the user mouse-selects it to see it. I am now chasing down the w3c validator complaints. Of course, there will likely be some review feedback. ;-)
> > The memory-barriers.txt commits are available in the git repository at: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git for-mingo > > > > for you to fetch changes up to 65f95ff2e41a32dd190cf28e3abb029625eef968: > > > > documentation: Clarify compiler store-fusion example (2016-03-14 15:52:19 -0700) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Paul E. McKenney (7): > > documentation: Fix control dependency and identical stores > > documentation: Fix memory-barriers.txt section references > > documentation: Remove obsolete reference to RCU-protected indexes > > documentation: Subsequent writes ordered by rcu_dereference() > > documentation: Distinguish between local and global transitivity > > documentation: Add alternative release-acquire outcome > > documentation: Transitivity is not cumulativity > > > > SeongJae Park (1): > > documentation: Clarify compiler store-fusion example > > > > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 116 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > Pulled into tip:locking/urgent, thanks a lot Paul!
Thank you, Ingo!
I will likely have one more locktorture RFC pull request, if that works for you. This fixes a bug and has very few users, so very low risk.
Thanx, Paul
| |