On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:33:08PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > 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? Indeed (examples in the trimmed text). > 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... Well, I said that it was my only current constructive argument... Andrea > > Akira > > > > > Andrea > > > > > >> > >> Alan > >> >
