Re: Documentation/locking/locktypes: Further clarifications and wordsmithing

[Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2020-03-25 09:39:19 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > --- a/Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst
> > …
> > > +rw_semaphore
> > > +============
> > > +
> > > +rw_semaphore is a multiple readers and single writer lock mechanism.
> > > +
> > > +On non-PREEMPT_RT kernels the implementation is fair, thus preventing
> > > +writer starvation.
> > > +
> > > +rw_semaphore complies by default with the strict owner semantics, but there
> > > +exist special-purpose interfaces that allow non-owner release for readers.
> > > +These work independent of the kernel configuration.
> > 
> > This reads funny, could be my English. "This works independent …" maybe?
> 
> The "These" refers to "interfaces", which is plural, so "These" rather
> than "This".  But yes, it is a bit awkward, because you have to skip
> back past "readers", "release", and "non-owner" to find the implied
> subject of that last sentence.
> 
> So how about this instead, making the implied subject explicit?
> 
> rw_semaphore complies by default with the strict owner semantics, but there
> exist special-purpose interfaces that allow non-owner release for readers.
> These interfaces work independent of the kernel configuration.

Yes, perfect. Thank you.

> 							Thanx, Paul

Sebastian