Hi,
On 24/10/18 06:48, Randy Dunlap wrote:
Hi,
On 10/23/18 2:34 PM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
[...]
+- The present document doesn't address such transient.
transience.
ok
[...]
+ are attempted after the write protection is in place, will cause
no comma.
ok
[...]
+ - Its usefulness depends on the specific use case at hand
end above sentence with a period, please, like all of the others above it.
ok
+ - The "START_WR" mode is the only one which provides immediate protection, at the cost of speed.
Please try to keep the line above and a few below to < 80 characters in length.
(because some of us read rst files as text files, with a text editor, and line
wrap is ugly)
ok, I still have to master .rst :-(
[...]
+- The users of rare write must take care of ensuring the atomicity of the
s/rare write/write rare/ ?
thanks
+ action, respect to the way they use the data being altered; for example,
This .. "respect to the way" is awkward, but I don't know what to
change it to.
+ take a lock before making a copy of the value to modify (if it's
+ relevant), then alter it, issue the call to rare write and finally
+ release the lock. Some special scenario might be exempt from the need
+ for locking, but in general rare-write must be treated as an operation
It seemed to me that "write-rare" (or write rare) was the going name, but now
it's being called "rare write" (or rare-write). Just be consistent, please.
write-rare it is, because it can be shortened as wr_xxx
rare_write becomes rw_xxx
which wrongly hints at read/write, which it definitely is not
+ tlb entries. It still does a better job of it, compared to invoking
TLB
ok
+ vmalloc for each allocation, but it is undeniably less optimized wrt to
s/wrt/with respect to/
yes
Thanks for the documentation.
thanks for the review :-)
--
igor
