Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:19:28 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/29] tsx: Add generic noop macros for RTM intrinsics
Message-ID: <20130325081928.GT19692@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <1364001923-10796-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <1364001923-10796-2-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <30418.1364182745@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <30418.1364182745@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 967
Lines: 25

> RTM == restricted transactional memory.  I don't understand why it's
> "restricted" and why any other architecture else would call it that and

It's restricted as in there is no guarantee that a transaction ever succeeds
and always needs a fallback path. My understanding is that this is true for 
PPC too, but not necessarily zSeries.

> hence why Linux should call it that?
> 
> Can we just call it TM for transactional memory?  Each arch can then
> have their own implementation and call it what they want.

I don't think the name will stop them to do anything.

If people feel strongly about it can change it, but it's not
actually making a real difference.

-Andi
-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/