On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 03:09:49PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Andrea Parri wrote: > > Heh, your confusion might be the reflection of mine... ;-) That was > > indeed a long and not conclusive discussion (meaning there're pending > > issues); and I cannot claim to find "arguments" such as: > > > > "More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that > > the LKMM should enforce ordering of writes by locking." > > > > particularly helpful (I do tend to be convinced by arguments rather > > than by opinions). In fact, you can take the following as my only > > current "constructive argument" against the patch [1,2]: > > > > THE COMMIT MESSAGE IS RIDICULOUS; PLEASE EXPAND ON IT, AND DO > > SO BY LEVERAGING BOTH PROS AND CONS OF THE APPLIED CHANGES > > Do you have any concrete suggestions (i.e., some actual text) for > improvements to the patch description? Earlier in your message you > mentioned that Will's comment: > > LKMM offers stronger guarantees that can portably be relied upon > in the codebase. > > would make a good addition. Suitably edited, it could be added to the > description. I can think of a few other things myself, but I'd like to > hear your thoughts. Anything else? Yes: I do sometimes have the impression that your "rules" for trimming text in emails/replies are too aggressive... Andrea > > Alan >
