On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 06:41:37AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> 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?
And fixed again. ;-)
> >> * (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!
Easy changes. A hard change would be write a new chapter or some such. ;-)
> 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?
I do have "ARMv8 has recently added load-acquire and store-release
instructions" in a footnote.
The memory-barrier discussion needs a full rewrite, but that must
wait on some ongoing work to actually formally define what exactly the
Linux-kernel memory model is. That rewrite will bring in ARMv8.
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
