On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:17 PM Waiman Long <llong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/21/21 2:29 AM, Xiongwei Song wrote: > > From: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > The block condition matrix is using 'E' as the writer noation here, so it > > would be better to use 'E' as the reminder rather than 'W'. > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst > > index 9f3cfca..c3b923a 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst > > @@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ Block condition matrix, Y means the row blocks the column, and N means otherwise > > | R | Y | Y | N | > > +---+---+---+---+ > > > > - (W: writers, r: non-recursive readers, R: recursive readers) > > + (E: writers, r: non-recursive readers, R: recursive readers) > > > > > > acquired recursively. Unlike non-recursive read locks, recursive read locks > > I would say it should be the other way around. Both W and E refer to the > same type of lockers. W emphasizes writer aspect of it and E for > exclusive. I think we should change the block condition matrix to use W > instead of E. The doc uses 'E' to describe dependency egdes too. Should we change them to 'W'? Personally, both 'W' and 'E' are fine. Thanks, Xiongwei > > Cheers, > Longman >
