Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp1506024yba; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:09:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy5axpQOU3KU3+LtE2homjpXDflcyeVx9Dxt2mx2WVwQGk3RXOR5AsfZypD0+mR8aDDv+y+ X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:846:: with SMTP id 64mr8209315plk.266.1554404995150; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 12:09:55 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1554404995; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=tN8suWCdbMOieM7Q23WxgjpzfIwsCI71G8eXky9+o+0sjEovOnpk+XhPtQAYcCX7PM 5D/dRaavfkhIMbTVmOXZl17k2Q0Q/lao9yAYlq37PKxvrlOkSs4KkOErUVFhG3gnS3H9 fLca/R5QTf+cBOczrYePE/0i2Q0FzjwZkSfPYN2rJ/VBy0K+qU88SMTkoKAkjPLMQAxF F2mC3avtPdishNop7ruZcOiBJ1nY07G24PNtO5+YRzUS5llAC9IhN1GSHeDNKQO3oyHO RlF9euUCt055ud2sACwkcHOAQEK3kfNIPnij/D0UOO7D4fzpCx4YI5jzQz6ix2FuGfuX 558Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=zHeyrf7q2EKXj/tkEQfu69f87q/lqP/PksOETvtw4Dk=; b=KoMrnlmKQ0uHFkrxVxMKI+p3lLiv1H+D17E5F5Mj+pEGkVkDEYUQA8VRqe493wMp5q ib1KUKtHKkMIEmJZYrfnWvGr2nEHUowRHPqo8QAiuhEgMm4ivGiu5Syn7Jlv9GocZ4Wc dSzmmAOR0L2vOi0HfEiT8DHNlGSz9xvaMLB87dqOpLF8sENhvzlFy9Xdi8PlYsqKsw7Y D//hVSB4jW/jqIy3NjhVPgLHOzCDDDWGImVlRMar2O3m+G8QLqdHvLHYdqRE2oHVyg2f 1ThH7RPmcml+WIlP6RoWF50NW+jqVY6wyQqsm1gJ0o5H3rslXjVY8rpEOV+i05Bs0P7C PKsg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x4si16727241pll.344.2019.04.04.12.09.39; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 12:09:55 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730021AbfDDTJD (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:09:03 -0400 Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:41540 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1729848AbfDDTJD (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:09:03 -0400 Received: (qmail 27278 invoked by uid 2102); 4 Apr 2019 15:09:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Apr 2019 15:09:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:09:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@iolanthe.rowland.org To: Joel Fernandes cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Oleg Nesterov , Jann Horn , Kees Cook , "Eric W. Biederman" , LKML , Android Kernel Team , Kernel Hardening , Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , Michal Hocko , "Reshetova, Elena" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert struct pid count to refcount_t In-Reply-To: <20190404180842.GB183378@google.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 4 Apr 2019, Joel Fernandes wrote: > FWIW, thought to mention (feel free ignore the suggestion if its > meaningless): If there is any chance that the outcome can be better > outputted, like r1=X; x=1; Where X stands for the result of a data race, that > would be lovely. I don't know much about herd internals (yet) to say if the > suggestion makes sense but as a user, it would certainly help reduce > confusion. I don't think that is feasible. For one thing, according to the C Standard, in the presence of a data race a program is allowed to do anything at all. There's no point trying to display all possible outcomes of an execution! If we adopted the proposal that certain kinds of data races only result in undefined values, things would be a little better. It's possible that the herd program could be changed to support undefined values. At present, however, it does not. Alan Stern