On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 08:43:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > (a) the "official" rules are completely pointless, and make sense > > only because the standard is written for some random "abstract > > machine" that doesn't actually exist. > > Presuming the intent of the abstract machine specification is to avoid > being seen as biased towards any specific machine (politics), maybe > write this as: > > (a) the "official" rules are written for a somewhat weird and > complex "union of all known and theoretically possible CPU > architectures that exist or which might exist in the future", > which machine does not actually exist in practice, but which > allows a single abstract set of rules to apply to all machines. > These rules are complex, but if applied to a specific machine > they become considerably simpler. Here's a few examples: ... > > ? > > (Assuming it's a goal of this standard to be human parseable to more > than a few dozen people on the planet.) Should something based on Section 7.9 go in, then I would need to add a more developer-friendly explanation in Documentation/RCU, no two ways about it! ;-) 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
