Hi Akira and Paul,
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 20:17:25 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 12:12:24PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 16:38:12 -0700, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > Hi Akira,
> > >
> > > On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 07:20:48 +0900 Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 10:02:25 -0700, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > >>> From: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>
> > >>> Some sentences in refcnt.tex is using only quote for some code words.
> > >>> Use \tco{} instead, as it is intended to be used for the case.
> > >>
> > >> \tco{} doesn't put quotes around it.
> > >> Didn't you mean \qco{} ?
> > >
> > > You're correct, I was out of my mind. I also mistakenly used an email account
> > > that different from what I signed patches off. I will send a new spin
> > > tomorrow.
> >
> > Looks like Paul has already pulled and pushed this (commit 0e96cb8283ca).
> >
> > Can you send a fix on top ?
>
> Or I can remove that commit if that makes things easier. When you send
> me the patch, please just let me know if it is to replace 0e96cb8283ca
> or to go on top of it. Your choice! ;-)
Sorry, I found this mail after I sent the patch. Just for a record. I sent
the patch on top of it. If you'd prefer to, please feel free to squash it into
the old one. I have no preference but just want to make the trivial nit fixed.
>
> And thank you, Akira, for checking.
Thank you all.
Thanks,
SJ
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > Thanks, Akira
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > SJ
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, Akira
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> together/refcnt.tex | 8 ++++----
> > >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/together/refcnt.tex b/together/refcnt.tex
> > >>> index 56caed67..4abe1c60 100644
> > >>> --- a/together/refcnt.tex
> > >>> +++ b/together/refcnt.tex
> > >>> @@ -467,15 +467,15 @@ as shown below.
> > >>>
> > >>> \QuickQuiz{
> > >>> Why can't the check for a zero reference count be
> > >>> - made in a simple ``if'' statement with an atomic
> > >>> - increment in its ``then'' clause?
> > >>> + made in a simple \tco{if} statement with an atomic
> > >>> + increment in its \tco{then} clause?
> > >>> }\QuickQuizAnswer{
> > >>> - Suppose that the ``if'' condition completed, finding
> > >>> + Suppose that the \tco{if} condition completed, finding
> > >>> the reference counter value equal to one.
> > >>> Suppose that a release operation executes, decrementing
> > >>> the reference counter to zero and therefore starting
> > >>> cleanup operations.
> > >>> - But now the ``then'' clause can increment the counter
> > >>> + But now the \tco{then} clause can increment the counter
> > >>> back to a value of one, allowing the object to be
> > >>> used after it has been cleaned up.
> > >>>
