On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 01:55:08PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 06:52:18PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > I wonder if we really need a special notation for lk-rmw. Is anything > > > wrong with using the normal rmw notation for these links? > > > > I don't think we need the special notation: in fact, herd7 doesn't know > > anything about these lk-rmw or rmw links between lock events until after > > tools/memory-model/ (the .cat file) has established such links cf. > > > > (* Link Lock-Reads to their RMW-partner Lock-Writes *) > > let lk-rmw = ([LKR] ; po-loc ; [LKW]) \ (po ; po) > > let rmw = rmw | lk-rmw > > > > I was trying to be informative (since that says "lk-rmw is a subrelation > > of rmw) but, in order to be faithful to the scope of this document (herd > > representation), the doc should really just indicate LKR ->po LKW. > > > > Thoughts? > > I agree; be faithful to the document's scope and just say LKR ->po LKW. > > Were there other things like this in the table? I didn't notice any. None that I can think of, the others look good to me. I'll do this change for v3. Thank you for the suggestion. Andrea
