Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1621578594-13237-1-git-send-email-sxwjean@me.com> <e0c0302f-e63f-7eba-872b-85e21b0b1622@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0c0302f-e63f-7eba-872b-85e21b0b1622@redhat.com>
From:   Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 May 2021 12:24:00 +0800
Message-ID: <CAEVVKH9nwPmQo8L-eRsWST+gPaJ73MSHZfJ-mM8qWvPaiejdrA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: lockdep-design: correct the notation for writer
To:     Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
Cc:     Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@me.com>, peterz@infradead.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        corbet@lwn.net,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:17 PM Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/21/21 2:29 AM, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> > From: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@gmail.com>
> >
> > The block condition matrix is using 'E' as the writer noation here, so it
> > would be better to use 'E' as the reminder rather than 'W'.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst
> > index 9f3cfca..c3b923a 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst
> > @@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ Block condition matrix, Y means the row blocks the column, and N means otherwise
> >       | R | Y | Y | N |
> >       +---+---+---+---+
> >
> > -     (W: writers, r: non-recursive readers, R: recursive readers)
> > +     (E: writers, r: non-recursive readers, R: recursive readers)
> >
> >
> >   acquired recursively. Unlike non-recursive read locks, recursive read locks
>
> I would say it should be the other way around. Both W and E refer to the
> same type of lockers. W emphasizes writer aspect of it and E for
> exclusive. I think we should change the block condition matrix to use W
> instead of E.

The doc uses 'E'  to describe dependency egdes too. Should we change them
to 'W'? Personally,  both 'W' and 'E' are fine.

Thanks,
Xiongwei
>
> Cheers,
> Longman
>