Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:03:39 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -lkmm] docs/memory-barriers: Fix inconsistent name of
 'data dependency barrier'
Message-ID: <20220609150339.GA3289@willie-the-truck>
References: <cc2c7885-ac75-24f3-e18a-e77f97c91b4c@gmail.com>
 <20220607133432.GA32701@willie-the-truck>
 <Yp9h4Cmo0UNZp6xD@rowland.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yp9h4Cmo0UNZp6xD@rowland.harvard.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 10:34:08AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Alternatively, maybe we should be removing the historical stuff from the
> > document altogether if it's no longer needed. We don't have any occurrences
> > of read_barrier_depends() anymore, so why confuse people with it?
> 
> How about relegating discussion of these barriers to a special 
> "historical" or "niche architecture" section of the document?  In a 
> separate patch, of course.

That would work, perhaps with a little bit of commentary to say that it's
no longer relevent to the kernel sources and is provided for information
only.

Will