Re: [PATCH 10/18] rcu: rcupdate.h: get rid of Sphinx warnings at rcu_pointer_handoff()

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 08:55:33AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Mon, 7 May 2018 07:23:22 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> escreveu: > > > On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 06:35:46AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > >

Re: [PATCH 10/18] rcu: rcupdate.h: get rid of Sphinx warnings at rcu_pointer_handoff()

Inline literal start-string > without end-string. > > Change it to a code-block. > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+sams...@kernel.org> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> If you don't tell me otherwise, I will assume that you are pushing t

Re: [PATCH 1/2] atomic_ops.rst: Fix wrong example code

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 05:42:44PM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote: > Example code snippets for necessary of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() has > an unnecessary line of code and wrong condition. This commit fixes > them. > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park Good catch!!! I queued

Re: [PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: Fix broken DMA vs MMIO ordering example

not > required. > > Fix the example and update the text to make this clearer. > > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <j...@ziepe.ca> > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <pau

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: cross-reference "tools/memory-model/"

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 04:00:53PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 06:29:23AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:50:51PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 04:31:00AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: cross-reference "tools/memory-model/"

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:50:51PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 04:31:00AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 07:37:08PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > Hi Akira, > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 01

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: cross-reference "tools/memory-model/"

think it is worthwhile, could you help me join the thread by > > forwarding the following part as a reply to your message, plus CC: to me. > > [CCing lists and other people] > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 17:21:03AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > &g

Re: [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: list file memory-barriers.txt within the LKMM entry

On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 02:08:00AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 03:51:02PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:13:42AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > Now that a formal specification of the LKMM has become available to > &g

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: cross-reference "tools/memory-model/"

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:12:48AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > Recent efforts led to the specification of a memory consistency model > for the Linux kernel [1], which "can (roughly speaking) be thought of > as an automated version of memory-barriers.txt" and which is (in turn) > "accompanied by

Re: [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: list file memory-barriers.txt within the LKMM entry

uggested-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.and...@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index ba4dc08fbe95..e6ad9b44e8fb 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINER

Re: [RFC] doc: fix code snippet build warnings

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 07:30:07AM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 08:37:02AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 03:04:53PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > > Posting as RFC in the hope that someone knows how to massage sphi

Re: [RFC] doc: fix code snippet build warnings

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 03:04:53PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > Posting as RFC in the hope that someone knows how to massage sphinx > correctly to fix this patch. I would welcome that. ;-) > Currently function kernel-doc contains a multi-line code snippet. This > is causing sphinx to emit 5

Re: reST and rcupdate.h

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:43:18PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > 4.14 docs build tells me: > > ../include/linux/rcupdate.h:571: ERROR: Unexpected indentation. > ../include/linux/rcupdate.h:575: ERROR: Unexpected indentation. > ../include/linux/rcupdate.h:579: WARNING: Block quote ends without a

Re: rcu kernel-doc issues (4.14-rc1)

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:36:47AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:27:01 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On a related topic... Is there anything that test-builds docbook prior > > to patches hitti

[PATCH doc/rcu 2/2] doc: Fix various RCU docbook comment-header problems

Because many of RCU's files have not been included into docbook, a number of errors have accumulated. This commit fixes them. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- include/linux/rculist.h | 2 +- include/linux/rcupdate.h | 22 ++ include

[PATCH doc/rcu 1/2] doc: Fix RCU's docbook options

org> Reported-by: Akira Yokosawa <aki...@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst | 14 -- 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst b/Documentation/core-api/kerne

[PATCH doc/rcu 2/2] doc: Fix various RCU docbook comment-header problems

Because many of RCU's files have not been included into docbook, a number of errors have accumulated. This commit fixes them. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- include/linux/rculist.h | 2 +- include/linux/rcupdate.h | 22 ++ include

[PATCH doc/rcu 1/2] doc: Fix RCU's docbook options

org> Reported-by: Akira Yokosawa <aki...@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst | 14 -- 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst b/Documentation/core-api/kerne

[PATCH doc/rcu 0/2] Fix docbook regression

Hello, Linus, Commit 764f80798b95 ("doc: Add RCU files to docbook-generation files"), which is in v4.14-rc1, added :external: options for RCU source files in the file Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst. However, this now means nothing, and furthermore breaks builds of the docbook, which has

Re: rcu kernel-doc issues (4.14-rc1)

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:03:40AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:26:19 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > OK, how about if I submit them to the 4.15 merge window, but add the > > appropriate -sta

Re: rcu kernel-doc issues (4.14-rc1)

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 02:46:15PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 10/16/17 13:26, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:18:14PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 10/16/17 13:07, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:58:28PM -0700,

Re: rcu kernel-doc issues (4.14-rc1)

k for you? Thanx, Paul > Thanks. > > On 09/17/17 12:49, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 10:57:42AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 09/17/17 10:47, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 09:41:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: &g

Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: rewrite confusing statement about memory barriers

ries to improve the doc in order to avoid any > mis-understanding. > > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Signed-off-by: Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpicc...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Good catch, and you are quite correct, a write barrier orders only before and afte

Re: rcu kernel-doc issues (4.14-rc1)

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:30:01AM +0200, Markus Heiser wrote: > > > Am 18.09.2017 um 04:40 schrieb Paul E. McKenney > > <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>: > [...] > > And after some playing around, I did get rid of the error messages. > > The code-block output l

Re: rcu kernel-doc issues (4.14-rc1)

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 12:49:10PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 10:57:42AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 09/17/17 10:47, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 09:41:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > >> On Sat, Se

Re: rcu kernel-doc issues (4.14-rc1)

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 10:57:42AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 09/17/17 10:47, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 09:41:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 06:26:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >>> On 4.14-rc1, I am

Re: rcu kernel-doc issues (4.14-rc1)

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 09:41:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 06:26:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 4.14-rc1, I am seeing lots of warnings on rcu kernel-doc: > > > > .. kernel-doc:: include/linux/rcupdate.h > >:external: > >

Re: rcu kernel-doc issues (4.14-rc1)

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 06:26:04PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 4.14-rc1, I am seeing lots of warnings on rcu kernel-doc: > > .. kernel-doc:: include/linux/rcupdate.h >:external: > ./Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst:357: ERROR: Error in "kernel-doc" > directive: > unknown option:

Re: [PATCH v4] printk: Add monotonic, boottime, and realtime timestamps

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:08:00PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > On 08/08/2017 04:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 01:36:39PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 04:06:09PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH v4] printk: Add monotonic, boottime, and realtime timestamps

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 04:06:09PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > On 08/07/2017 02:47 PM, John Stultz wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > >> On 08/07/2017 12:52 PM, John Stultz wrote: > >>> Still not quite following why you're updating

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 08:38:57AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > On 2017/07/20 16:07:14 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 07:52:03AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > >> On 2017/07/20 14:42:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > [...] > >>&g

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 08:24:40AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 04:07:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > [...] > > > > > > So if I respin the patch with the extern, would you still feel reluctant? > > > > Yes, because I am not

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 07:52:03AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > On 2017/07/20 14:42:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 06:12:56AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > >> On 2017/07/20 09:11:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>> On Thu, Ju

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 06:12:56AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > On 2017/07/20 09:11:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:55:31PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > >> On 2017/07/20 14:47, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 a

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:55:31PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > On 2017/07/20 14:47, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:31:41AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 02:56:02PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>> On Thu, Ju

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 02:14:34PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:47:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > [...] > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > I know the compiler could optimize atomics in very interesting ways, but > > > this c

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:31:41AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 02:56:02PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:33:26AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > > > On 2017/07/20 2:43, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Mon, Ju

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:33:26AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > On 2017/07/20 2:43, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:24:42PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > >> >From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> From: Ak

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:24:42PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > >From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Akira Yokosawa > Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:25:33 +0900 > Subject: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example > >

Re: [PATCH] docs: Do not include from kernel/rcu/srcu.c

> Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <cor...@lwn.net> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > Probably we should really put the RCU documentation into the core-API > manual, but

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: atomic_ops.txt is core-api/atomic_ops.rst

pal...@dabbelt.com> > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> Good catch! Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 10 +- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Document

Re: [PATCH] docs: typo in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt

This commit changes "architecure" to the correct spelling, "architecture". Signed-off-by: Stan Drozd <drozdzi...@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentatio

Re: [PATCH 1/1] doc: Update control-dependencies section of memory-barriers.txt

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:15:07AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 02:37:36PM +0800, pierre Kuo wrote: > > for below example, if MAX is defined to be 1, then the compiler knows (Q > > % MAX) is equal to zero. > > so compiler will transform the "else" part of code. > > > >

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: circular-buffers: use READ_ONCE()

com> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <cor...@lwn.net> > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > Documentation/circular-buffer

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: atomic_ops: use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE()

ventual removal of ACCESS_ONCE(), update the documentation to use the > {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() macros as appropriate. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> > Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.f...@gmail.com> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <cor...@lwn.net> > Cc: Paul E

Re: [PATCH] Documentation/RCU: Fix minor typo

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:43:24AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:54:03AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote: > > deference should actually be dereference. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar > > Good catch. > > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett

Re: [PATCH v15 04/13] task_isolation: add initial support

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:22:20PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 10:28:00AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > Unless I'm missing something (which is reasonably likely), couldn't > > the isolation code just force or require rcu_nocbs on the isolated > > CPUs to

Re: [PATCH] documentation: fix broken lkml archive links in RCU requirements

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 09:18:28AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:17:06 +0200 > Michael Opdenacker wrote: > > > Fix 4 LKML archive links that became broken > > (issue with https://lkml.kernel.org/g/ redirection links) > > > >

Re: [PATCH] documentation: fix broken lkml archive links in RCU requirements

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 04:17:14PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Michael, > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Michael Opdenacker > wrote: > > Fix 4 LKML archive links that became broken (data loss > > on mail-archive.com?) > > > > Working links were

Re: clocksource_watchdog causing scheduling of timers every second (was [v13] support "task_isolation" mode)

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 04:26:13PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:23:13AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > Heh! The only really good idea is for clocks to be reliably in sync. > &

Re: clocksource_watchdog causing scheduling of timers every second (was [v13] support "task_isolation" mode)

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:02:34PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > With modern Intel we could run it on one CPU per package I think, but at > > > the same time, too much in NOHZ_FULL assumes the TSC is indeed sane

Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] Doc/memory-barriers: Add Korean translation

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 06:15:33PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:10:58AM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > This commit adds Korean version of memory-barriers.txt document

Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] Doc/memory-barriers: Fix a typo of example result

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:10:57AM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote: > An example result for data dependent write has a typo. This commit > fixes the wrong typo. > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park Good catch! Queued, thank you!

Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Doc/memory-barriers: Add Korean translation

On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 08:27:05AM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote: > This patchset adds Korean translation of memory-barriers.txt and fix few > nitpicks found during the translation. The translation has started from Feb, > 2016 and using private git tree[1] to manage the work. It's commit history >

Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Remove outdated config option description

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 07:51:22AM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote: > CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST_RUNNABLE has removed by commit 4e9a073f60367 > ("torture: Remove CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST_RUNNABLE, simplify code") > entirely but the document has not updated. This commit updates the > document to remove the

Re: [PATCH Documentation/memory-barriers.txt] Clarify limited control-dependency scope

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Nothing in the control-dependencies section of memory-barriers.txt > > says that control dependencies don't extend beyond the end of the

[PATCH Documentation/memory-barriers.txt] Clarify limited control-dependency scope

demonstrating this limitation of control dependencies. Reported-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/m

[PATCH locking 4/4] locktorture: Simplify torture_runnable computation

This commit replaces a #ifdef with IS_ENABLED(), saving five lines. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 7 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktor

[PATCH locking 2/4] documentation: State purpose of memory-barriers.txt

From: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> There has been some confusion about the purpose of memory-barriers.txt, so this commit adds a statement of purpose. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- Do

[PATCH locking 3/4] documentation: ACQUIRE applies to loads, RELEASE applies to stores

CQUIRE semantics. Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.i

[PATCH locking 1/4] documentation: Add disclaimer

nk its a particularly good idea; the data dependency barrier required by Alpha being a prime example. Yes we have it, no you're insane to require it when building new hardware. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@lin

[PATCH locking 0/4] locktorture and memory-barriers.txt updates

Hello! This series contains a few memory-barriers.txt updates and a locktorture cleanup: 1. Add a disclaimer to memory-barrier.txt, courtesy of Peter Zijlstra. 2. Explicitly state the purpose of memory-barrier.txt, courtesy of David Howells. 3. Explicitly state

Re: [PATCH 33/41] Documentation: RCU: fix spelling mistake

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:48:13AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 07:36:59AM +0100, Eric Engestrom wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom > > Good catch. > > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett Queued, thank you both!

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Add Korean translation of memory-barriers.txt

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:36:05AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 06:52:11AM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Paul E. McKenney > > <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:06:5

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add Korean translation of memory-barriers.txt

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:48:54AM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote: > This patchset aims to add Korean translation of memory-barriers document. > > The patchset starts from fixing minor and trivial problems in the original > document that found during translation. After that, the final patch adds the

Re: [PATCH v2] x86: PAT: Documentation: rewrite "MTRR effects on PAT / non-PAT systems"

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 02:45:01PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > The current documentation refers to using set_memory_wc() as a > possible hole strategy when you have overlapping ioremap() regions, > that's incorrect as set_memory_*() helpers can only be used on RAM, > not IO memory. Using

Re: [PATCH] x86: PAT: Documentation: update overlapping ioremap hack recommendation

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 08:23:26PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:42:33PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 01:21:48PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > The current documentation refers to using set_memor_wc() as a &

Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example

update a given variable. Unfortunately, someone could reasonably interpret the comment as instead referring to the following line of code. This commit therefore replaces the comment with a string that more clearly represents the arbitrary code. Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj

Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 07:50:19AM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Paul E. McKenney > <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 03:01:08PM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote: > >> There is wrong comment in example for c

Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix wrong comment in example

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 03:01:08PM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote: > There is wrong comment in example for compiler store omit behavior. It > shows example of the problem and than problem solved version code. > However, the comment in the solved version is still same with not solved > version. Fix