On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 08:12:46PM +0100, Johann Klähn wrote: > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 17:55 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Queued and pushed, thank you! I did take the liberty of changing your > > added "can" to a "nevertheless". Does that work for you? > > Sure, in that case maybe also remove the second “be”? > | Atomic increment might be completely acceptable for a two-CPU > | system, but nevertheless completely inadequate for an eight-CPU system. Good point in that the sentence is still a bit awkward. So what I have done is to add a LaTeX comment that will remind me to think harder about it. If I don't get a good replacement by (say) March, please remind me about it. Thanx, Paul
