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:   Sat, 31 Aug 2019 08:43:44 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc:lock: remove reference to clever use of read-write
 lock
Message-ID: <20190831084344.6fd7c039@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190831134116.25417-1-federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>
References: <20190831134116.25417-1-federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>
Organization: LWN.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 15:41:16 +0200
Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it> wrote:

>  several CPU's and you want to use spinlocks you can potentially use
> -cheaper versions of the spinlocks. IFF you know that the spinlocks are
> +cheaper versions of the spinlocks. If you know that the spinlocks are
>  never used in interrupt handlers, you can use the non-irq versions::

I suspect that was not actually a typo; "iff" is a way for the
mathematically inclined to say "if and only if".

jon