On Thu, 14 May 2020 15:45:58 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 07:03:33AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 May 2020 10:16:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 08:46:18AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 06:39:03AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>>>>> From 96fa6680e3b990633ecbb6d11acf03a161b790bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>> From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 15:12:57 +0900
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH RESEND 3/4] Documentation/litmus-tests: Merge atomic's README into top-level one
>>>>>
>>>>> Where Documentation/litmus-tests/README lists RCU litmus tests,
>>>>> Documentation/litmus-tests/atomic/README lists atomic litmus tests.
>>>>> For symmetry, merge the latter into former, with some context
>>>>> adjustment in the introduction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Acked-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Applied, and thank you all!
>>>
>>> I rebased, cancelling the revert with the original, resulting in an
>>> updated lkmm branch on -rcu. There was one minor conflict, so could
>>> one of you please check to make sure that I resolved things appropriately?
>>
>> One thing I noticed.
>>
>> Commit b2998782ded4 ("Documentation/litmus-tests: Clarify about the RCU
>> pre-initialization test")'s change log says:
>>
>> Since this test returned to tools/memory-model/, make sure that it is
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> at least referenced from Documentation/litmus-tests/'s README.
>>
>> Because of the rebase, this needs amendment as well as the title.
>>
>> Something like
>>
>> Documentation/litumus-tests: Cite a relevant litmus test in tools/memory-model
>>
>> For ease of finding the RCU related litmus test under
>> tools/memory-model/, add an entry in README.
>>
>> ?
>
> Good catch, and yes, I will update that on the next rebase.
>
> Any other things in need of adjustment?
Aside from the missing Signed-off-by tags Stephen pointed out, I don't
see anything.
Thanks, Akira
>
> Thanx, Paul
