On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:19:14 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 07:40:16PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Here are colon related tweaks though Chapter 9.
>>
>> Patches 1/6 -- 3/6 don't change sentences/clauses/phrases except
>> for capitalization.
>> Patches 4/6 -- 6/6 remove redundant looking Oxford commas in
>> two-item enumeration lists.
>> However, I'm not sure Patches 4/6 -- 6/6 are the right fixes or not.
>>
>> Please pick whichever ones you'd like.
>
> After some thought and web searching, I took them all. The missing
> comma in the numbered list looks a bit strange to me, but the style
> manuals don't differentiate between numbered and non-numbered lists,
> so I am willing to have things look strange to avoid yet another
> perfbook-specific composition rule. ;-)>
>> NOTE: There is a hunk in Patch 3/6:
>>
>>> @@ -535,9 +537,10 @@ and with increasing use of hazard pointers in other projects, demonstrates
>>> that tolerance for such inconsistencies is more common than one might
>>> imagine.
>>> This is especially the case given that single-item lookups are much more
>>> -common than traversals: After all, (1)~concurrent updates are less likely
>>> -to affect a single-item lookup than they are a full traversal, and
>>> -(2)~an isolated single-item lookup cannot detect such inconsistencies.
>>> +common than traversals:
>>> +After all, (1)~concurrent updates are less likely to affect a single-item
>>> +lookup than they are a full traversal, and (2)~an isolated single-item
>>> +lookup cannot detect such inconsistencies.
>>>
>>> From a more theoretical viewpoint, there are even some special cases where
>>> RCU readers can be considered to be fully ordered with updaters, despite
>>
>> , where the inline enumerated list is not converted to the "enumerate*" list.
>> This one is lead by "After all," not by a colon, and I kept the lowercase
>> words following (1) and (2).
>>
>> This level of fluctuation is unavoidable in natural language text,
>> I suppose.
>
> I wordsmithed this passage to get rid of the list entirely.
> I believe that it now reads better, in addition to avoiding another
> perfbook-specific special case.
There looks like a typo in the updated passage.
Please find a patch below.
Thanks, Akira
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
[...]
-------8<---------
From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 08:43:52 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] defer/rcufundamental: Fix typo
Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
---
defer/rcufundamental.tex | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/defer/rcufundamental.tex b/defer/rcufundamental.tex
index ff3c4bc1..66f9b702 100644
--- a/defer/rcufundamental.tex
+++ b/defer/rcufundamental.tex
@@ -543,7 +543,7 @@ full-data-structure traversals.
After all, full-data-structure traversals are much more expensive than
single-item lookups, so developers are motivated to avoid such traversals.
Not only are concurrent updates are less likely to affect a single-item
-lookup than they are a full traversal, but is is also the case that an
+lookup than they are a full traversal, but it is also the case that an
isolated single-item lookup has no way of detecting such inconsistencies.
As a result, in the common case, such inconsistencies are not just
tolerable, they are in fact invisible.
--
2.17.1
