On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:51:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:01:25AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > I don't quite see the point of this. You're not suggesting that we > > have one Linux Kernel Memory Consistency Model for s390 and another > > one for all the other architectures, are you? > > > > If the idea is merely to provide a herd model for s390 then it should > > go into the DIY repository, not into the LKMM repository. > > I suspect the use-case was validating s390 arch code which might not > have followed all the regular linux rules because they know its TSO. But > yes, I'm tempted to agree that even arch specific code ought to follow > the regular rules, just to avoid completely messing up the reader. Another use case is testing an s390 .cat file without having to teach herd about s390 assembly. ;-) Thanx, Paul
