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;
From:   Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
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
Date:   Thu, 05 Sep 2019 10:21:16 +0200
Message-ID: <261280816.8eN5xxrYeQ@harkonnen>
In-Reply-To: <20190831084344.6fd7c039@lwn.net>
References: <20190831134116.25417-1-federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it> <20190831084344.6fd7c039@lwn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 4:43:44 PM CEST Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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".

Unfortunately this thread focused on this little thing ^_^'

What about the patch itself? Should I send a new one without this fix or you 
will apply it as it is?