Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 3 Dec 2022 15:11:22 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] tools: memory-model: Make plain accesses carry dependencies |
| |
On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 04:32:19PM -0500, stern@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: > On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 12:44:05PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 03:34:20PM -0500, stern@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 11:02:26AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 11:58:36AM +0000, Jonas Oberhauser wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Boqun Feng [mailto:boqun.feng@gmail.com] > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 7:50 PM > > > > > > > > > > I wonder is this patch a first step to solve the OOTA problem you reported in OSS: > > > > > > https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/osseu2022/e1/oss-eu22-jonas.pdf > > > > > > If so maybe it's better to put the link in the commit log I think. > > > > > > > > > > It's not directly related to that specific problem, it does solve some other OOTA issues though. > > > > > If you think we should link to the talk, there's also a video with slightly more updated slides from the actual talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDKhIxKhoQ > > > > > do you think I should link to both then? > > > > > > > > It is not hard for me to add that in if people believe that it should be > > > > included. But default is lazy in this case. ;-) > > > > > > I don't think there's any need to mention that video in the commit log. > > > It's an introductory talk, and it's pretty safe to assume that anyone > > > reading the commit because they are interested in the LKMM in great > > > detail is already beyond the introductory level. > > > > > > On the other hand, it wouldn't hurt to include a Link: tag to an > > > appropriate message in this email thread. (I leave it up to Paul to > > > decide which message is most "appropriate" -- there may not be a good > > > candidate, because a lot of the messages were not CC'ed to LKML.) > > > > For this approach, I would add this: > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/4262e55407294a5989e766bc4dc48293@huawei.com/ > > There's no point including that link; it merely points to messages > containing or commenting on early versions of the commit. It adds very > little information not already present in the commit itself. (Have you > read any of Linus's criticisms of the Link: tags that people tend to > include in patches they send him? It's the same principle.) > > I was thinking of the discussion which led up to the commit being > written, where Jonas first brought up the idea that plain accesses > should be able to carry dependencies just like accesses to registers. > That's the sort of thing which would give readers some context and > understanding of the reasoning behind the commit. They were part of the > thread with the subject "RE: Interesting LKMM litmus test". > > But I can't find those messages on lore.kernel.org (which isn't > surprising, as they weren't CC'ed to any mailing lists).
I am OK with them being made public, maybe in a Google document or some such.
We would of course also need the consent of everyone else on that thread.
> > I could of course do both the extra paragraph -and- the Link:. ;-) > > > > Thoughts? > > My advice: Omit them both.
It would be good to reference something or another. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
|  |