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:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 16:27:08 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: comments style: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/9] printk-rb: add a new
 printk ringbuffer implementation
Message-ID: <20190823142708.GA2068@andrea>
References: <20190807222634.1723-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20190807222634.1723-2-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20190820085554.deuejmxn4kbqnq7n@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20190820092731.GA14137@jagdpanzerIV>
 <87a7c3f4uj.fsf@linutronix.de>
 <20190822135052.dp4dvav6fy2ajzkx@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20190822173801.GA2218@andrea>
 <20190823104713.mtxarc3ywtnryd2d@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190823104713.mtxarc3ywtnryd2d@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> I am not suggesting to remove all comments. Some human readable
> explanation is important as long as the code is developed by humans.
> 
> I think that I'll have to accept also the extra comments if you are
> really going to use them to check the consistency by a tool. Or
> if they are really used for review by some people.

Glad to hear this.  Thank you, Petr.


> Do all this manuals, tools, people use any common syntax, please?
> Would it be usable in our case as well?
> 
> I would like to avoid reinventing the wheel. Also I do not want
> to create a dialect for few people that other potentially interested
> parties will not understand.

Right; I think that terms such as "(barrier) matching", "reads-from"
and "overwrites" are commonly used to refer to litmus tests.  (The
various primitives/instructions are of course specific to the given
context: the language, the memory model, etc. )

IOW, I'd say that that wheel _and a common denominator here can be
represented by the notion of "litmus test".  I'm not suggesting to
reinvent this wheel of course; my point was more along the lines of
"let's use the wheel, it'll be helpful..."  ;-)

  Andrea