[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:35:44PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 06:48:02PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Linus Torvalds
> > <> wrote:
> > >
> > > And conversely, the C11 people can walk away from us too. But if they
> > > can't make us happy (and by "make us happy", I really mean no stupid
> > > games on our part) I personally think they'll have a stronger
> > > standard, and a real use case, and real arguments. I'm assuming they
> > > want that.
> >
> > I should have somebody who proof-reads my emails before I send them out.
> >
> > I obviously meant "if they *can* make us happy" (not "can't").
> Understood. My next step is to take a more detailed look at the piece
> of the standard that should support RCU. Depending on how that turns
> out, I might look at other parts of the standard vs. Linux's atomics
> and memory-ordering needs. Should be interesting. ;-)

And perhaps a better way to represent the roles is that I am not the
buyer, but rather the purchasing agent for the -potential- buyer. -You-
are of course the potential buyer.

If I were to see myself as the buyer, then I must confess that the
concerns you implicitly expressed in your prior email would be all too

Thanx, Paul

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-15 08:41    [W:0.145 / U:7.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site