On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:52:11AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:33:20AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 10:08:11AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > This is one of the reasons that the LKMM documetnation is so damn > > > > difficult to read and understand: just understanding the vocabulary > > > > it uses requires a huge learning curve, and it's not defined > > > > anywhere. Understanding the syntax of examples requires a huge > > > > learning curve, because it's not defined anywhere. > > > > > > Have you seen tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt? > > > > <raises eyebrow> > > > > Well, yes. Several times. I look at it almost daily, but that > > doesn't mean it's approachable, easy to read or even -that I > > understand what large parts of it say-. IOWs, that's one of the > > problematic documents that I've been saying have a huge learning > > curve. > > Can you be more specific? For example, exactly where does it start to > become unapproachable or difficult to read? > > Don't forget that this document was meant to help mitigate the LKMM's > learning curve. If it isn't successful, I want to improve it. I can't speak for Dave, but the introduction to that documentation makes it clear to me that it's not the document I want to read. : This document describes the ideas underlying the LKMM. It is meant : for people who want to understand how the model was designed. It does : not go into the details of the code in the .bell and .cat files; : rather, it explains in English what the code expresses symbolically. I don't want to know how the model was designed. I want to write a device driver, or filesystem, or whatever. Honestly, even the term "release semantics" trips me up _every_ time. It's a barrier to understanding because I have to translate it into "Oh, he means it's like an unlock". Why can't you just say "unlock semantics"?
