On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:35:44PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 06:48:02PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > And conversely, the C11 people can walk away from us too. But if they > > > can't make us happy (and by "make us happy", I really mean no stupid > > > games on our part) I personally think they'll have a stronger > > > standard, and a real use case, and real arguments. I'm assuming they > > > want that. > > > > I should have somebody who proof-reads my emails before I send them out. > > > > I obviously meant "if they *can* make us happy" (not "can't"). > > Understood. My next step is to take a more detailed look at the piece > of the standard that should support RCU. Depending on how that turns > out, I might look at other parts of the standard vs. Linux's atomics > and memory-ordering needs. Should be interesting. ;-) And perhaps a better way to represent the roles is that I am not the buyer, but rather the purchasing agent for the -potential- buyer. -You- are of course the potential buyer. If I were to see myself as the buyer, then I must confess that the concerns you implicitly expressed in your prior email would be all too well-founded! Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
