On 2016/07/28 10:40:57 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:06:22PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> There are still several issues regarding Chapter 9 I want to feedback.
>> I'm afraid most of them are beyond my ability to submit as patches.
>>
>> * At the beginning of Section 9.5.2, there is a credit of the form
>> "Authors: ...".
>> But there is \OriginallyPublished{} command just above the credit.
>> I'm wondering if the credit in the text is necessary.
>> There is a similar credit at the beginning of Section 14.2, but there is
>> no \OriginallyPublished{} command there. This section seems to have been
>> written for perfbook. If this is the case, for a consistent look, it would
>> be better if the credit is moved to Appendix F.1.
>
> Good point! I am guessing that these predated \OriginallyPublished{}, and
> that I didn't get around to fixing them properly. I have now fixed them.
>
>> * Position of Quick Quiz 9.44 looks a little premature. SRCU is mentioned
>> just after the Quick Quiz.
>
> Good catch, moved.
>
>> * The 2nd sentence of Section 9.5.4.4 ends as "... in the companion article."
>> This seems like a vestige of its origin in LWN. Should be fixed to match
>> the context.
>
> Now it is "Section~\ref{sec:defer:RCU Usage}", good eyes!
>
>> * In the introduction of Section 9.5.5, understanding of the whole Chapter 9
>> is listed in the prerequisite for the "toy" implementation. I suppose
>> recursion is not intended here.
>
> You know, that is strangely appropriate, now that you mention it! ;-)
>
> But how about the following?
>
> Nevertheless, you will need a thorough understanding of Chapters
> 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well as the previous portions of Chapter 9 for
> even these toy RCU implementations to be easily understandable.
It's perfect!
>
>> * Also in the introduction of Section 9.5.5, Section 9.5.5.2 is not mentioned.
>
> Fixed! Now "Section 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9".
>
Wouldn't "Sections 9.5.5.2 through 9.5.5.9" be better?
>> * (Typo) In the 2nd paragraph of Section 9.7, there is a redundant "can" in
>> "... so that updates can can operate locally, ...".
>> (Yes, I can submit the fix of this one as a patch. If you want me to do so,
>> please let me know.)
>
> I fixed it with your Reported-by.
>
> And here is the Youtube video corresponding to that particular typo:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Diu2N8TGKA
:-)
>
>> * (Apart from Chapter 9) In Section 14.2.10.1, there are four instances of
>> $\dagger$ for introducing notes. I'm wondering if they can be converted
>> to footnotes. I'm not sure where they should be placed in the text, though.
>
> Odd. Those were there in the initial git commit.
>
> I am removing the $\dagger$ commands and thus letting them be normal
> paragraphs.
>
>> I said earlier there were a few issues, but in the end there are a quite a few.
>>
>> I don't mind if some (or all) of them be taken care of later after the upcoming
>> release.
>
> They were all reasonably easy, so might as well do them now. Famous
> last words. ;-)
>
> I commited and pushed them all.
Quick work!
There is one thing I forgot to mention.
In Appendix C.7.3, ARM-v7's memory barrier instructions are explained.
My understanding is that ARM-v8's memory barrier instructions are in line
with the semantics of Linux kernel's memory barrier primitives.
Wouldn't it be worth to mention somewhere, e.g., in a footnote?
Thanks, Akira
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe perfbook" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
