On 2018/09/05 09:21:51 +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > 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, by saying "Yes:", do you mean you have something else to be added? I don't think you do, but want to make sure. I'm a bit surprised to see all you wanted was the amendment of the commit log... Akira > > Andrea > > >> >> Alan >>
