Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:14:50 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: ego@in.ibm.com
Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, torvalds@osdl.org, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@osdl.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@us.ibm.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com,
       dipankar@in.ibm.com, gaughen@us.ibm.com, arjan@linux.intel.org,
       davej@redhat.com, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, kiran@scalex86.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] lock_cpu_hotplug: Redesign - Lightweight
 implementation of lock_cpu_hotplug.
Message-Id: <20061026141450.53b48b88.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <20061026105731.GE11803@in.ibm.com>
References: <20061026104858.GA11803@in.ibm.com>
	<20061026105058.GB11803@in.ibm.com>
	<20061026105342.GC11803@in.ibm.com>
	<20061026105523.GD11803@in.ibm.com>
	<20061026105731.GE11803@in.ibm.com>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 784
Lines: 21

Gautham wrote:
+ *- Readers assume control iff:					*
+ *    a) No other reader has a reference and no writer is writing.	*
+ *    OR								*
+ *    b) Atleast one reader (on *any* cpu) has a reference.		*

Isn't this logically equivalent to stating:

  *- Readers assume control iff no writer is writing

(Or if it's not equivalent, it might be interesting to state why.)

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/