Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:00:42 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC LKMM 1/7] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for
 locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire
Message-ID: <20180905150042.GA8820@andrea>
References: <20180904081144.GA4137@andrea>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1809041503470.17060-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
 <20180905072151.GA3185@andrea>
 <50f0a7a7-0521-f833-34c3-132ce57dd777@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <50f0a7a7-0521-f833-34c3-132ce57dd777@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:33:08PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On 2018/09/05 09:21:51 +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 03:09:49PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> >> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Andrea Parri wrote:
> >>> Heh, your confusion might be the reflection of mine... ;-)  That was
> >>> indeed a long and not conclusive discussion (meaning there're pending
> >>> issues); and I cannot claim to find "arguments" such as:
> >>>
> >>>   "More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that
> >>>    the LKMM should enforce ordering of writes by locking."
> >>>
> >>> particularly helpful (I do tend to be convinced by arguments rather
> >>> than by opinions).  In fact, you can take the following as my only
> >>> current "constructive argument" against the patch [1,2]:
> >>>
> >>>   THE COMMIT MESSAGE IS RIDICULOUS; PLEASE EXPAND ON IT, AND DO
> >>>   SO BY LEVERAGING BOTH PROS AND CONS OF THE APPLIED CHANGES
> >>
> >> Do you have any concrete suggestions (i.e., some actual text) for 
> >> improvements to the patch description?  Earlier in your message you 
> >> mentioned that Will's comment:
> >>
> >> 	LKMM offers stronger guarantees that can portably be relied upon
> >> 	in the codebase.
> >>
> >> would make a good addition.  Suitably edited, it could be added to the
> >> description.  I can think of a few other things myself, but I'd like to 
> >> hear your thoughts.  Anything else?
> > 
> > Yes: I do sometimes have the impression that your "rules" for trimming
> > text in emails/replies are too aggressive...
> 
> Andrea, by saying "Yes:", do you mean you have something else to be added?

Indeed (examples in the trimmed text).


> I don't think you do, but want to make sure.
> 
> I'm a bit surprised to see all you wanted was the amendment of the
> commit log...

Well, I said that it was my only current constructive argument...

  Andrea


> 
>   Akira
> 
> > 
> >   Andrea
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
>