Thank you for motivating me and filling me with courage and confidence ;-) Thanx, Zhouyi On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 12:48 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 12:37:06AM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:11 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:54:27PM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote: > > > > Thank Paul for your encouragement, and thanks for adjusting the commit log ;-) > > > > > > Of course, if you are adding quick quizzes that would be of interest to > > > the general audience, please feel free to send them along. > > Thanks for your trust and encouragement. I will be very glad and honoured to add > > quick quizzes for your review in the future ;-) > > > > > > > > Or maybe we removed some quick quizzes recently, who knows? ;-) > > After comparing the > > https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/paulmck/perfbook/perfbook-e2.pdf > > and the most recent version build from > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/perfbook.git, > > I found > > QQ A.3 (old version) -> QQ A.4 (recent version) > > QQ A.4 (old version) -> QQ A.5 (recent version) > > QQ A.5 (old version) -> QQ A.3 (recent version) > > > > I am very sorry not to invoke a make before submit the patch (because > > of my laziness). > > I promise that I will build the pdf before submitting any patch from now on. > > No worries. It was good practice for me, given that I also maintain a > small part of the Linux kernel and we all know that people are working > to insert flaws. Most of them inadvertently, but you cannot be too > careful. ;-) > > But yes, it is good to check your patch against the current state. > > Thanx, Paul > > > Thanks again > > Zhouyi > > > > > > > Thanx, Zhouyi > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:34 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:58:30PM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote: > > > > > > In QQ A.5, the pronoun "that" should be preposition "than". And the > > > > > > word "imptementations" should be "implementations". > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Good eyes, queued and pushed, thank you! (It is QQ A.3 over here, > > > > > so I adjusted the commit log.) > > > > > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > > > > > > > I fixes some typo in QQ A.5 > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Zhouyi > > > > > > -- > > > > > > appendix/questions/ordering.tex | 4 ++-- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/appendix/questions/ordering.tex b/appendix/questions/ordering.tex > > > > > > index 298600f9..05217bc8 100644 > > > > > > --- a/appendix/questions/ordering.tex > > > > > > +++ b/appendix/questions/ordering.tex > > > > > > @@ -97,8 +97,8 @@ than the semantics given by the options above. > > > > > > > > > > > > \QuickQuiz{ > > > > > > But if fully ordered implementations cannot offer stronger > > > > > > - guarantees that the better performing and more scalable weakly > > > > > > - ordered imptementations, why bother with full ordering? > > > > > > + guarantees than the better performing and more scalable weakly > > > > > > + ordered implementations, why bother with full ordering? > > > > > > }\QuickQuizAnswer{ > > > > > > Because strongly ordered implementations are sometimes > > > > > > able to provide greater consistency among sets of calls to > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 2.25.1 > > > > > >
