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:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:21:33 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        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: <20190902142133.37e106af@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <4627860.yBeiQmOknq@harkonnen>
References: <20190831134116.25417-1-federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>
        <2216492.xyESGPMPG3@pcbe13614>
        <20190902181010.GA35858@gmail.com>
        <4627860.yBeiQmOknq@harkonnen>
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 Mon, 02 Sep 2019 21:19:24 +0200
Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it> wrote:

> > > I am not used to the mathematical English jargon. It make sense, but then
> > > I
> > > would replace it with "If and only if": for clarity.  
> > 
> > While it's used in a number of places and it's pretty common wording
> > overall in the literature, I agree that we should probably change this in
> > locking API user facing documentation.  
> 
> I would say not only in locking/. The argument is valid for the entire 
> Documentation/. I wait for Jon's opinion before proceeding.

I don't really have a problem with "iff"; it doesn't seem like *that*
obscure a term to me.  But if you want spell it out, I guess I don't have
a problem with that.  We can change it - iff you send a patch to do it :)

Thanks,

jon