Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 15:34:00 -0500
From:   Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     paulmck@kernel.org, Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, will <will@kernel.org>,
        "boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, npiggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        dhowells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        "j.alglave" <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget" <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, akiyks <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        dlustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>, joel <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        urezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        quic_neeraju <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        frederic <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus
 test)
Message-ID: <Y87vOLaPBapOzos9@rowland.harvard.edu>
References: <20230119001147.GN2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <0fae983b-2a7c-d44e-8881-53d5cc053f09@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230119184107.GT2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <64b48a7b-624c-26bd-be9b-0522fc490b28@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y8q+u09ynxnvjVi5@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <ea37d3d9-4ed3-872a-aed9-f34c4553f6f1@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y8wimpMpajLudrYb@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <1e77c538-d04b-62b7-a859-1589bab0ddef@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y86t5ST3TcUl/rQd@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <dc535472-eb7f-9b73-bd9b-3ec282e90478@huaweicloud.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <dc535472-eb7f-9b73-bd9b-3ec282e90478@huaweicloud.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 08:40:24PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/23/2023 4:55 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > I'm inclined to add this check to the memory model.  Would you prefer to
> > submit it yourself as a separate patch?  Or are you happy to have it
> > merged with my patch, and if so, do you have a final, preferred form for
> > the check?
> 
> After clearing my confusion, I'm no longer sure if it should be added. If
> you're still inclined to have it, I would prefer to submit the patch, but
> I'd like to define the use-cookie relation (= (data|[~Srcu-unlock];rfe)+)
> and use it also to clarify the srcu match definition (I almost would like to
> do that anyways :D).
> Is that ok?

Write up a patch and we can all judge it.

Alan