Re: [PATCH -perfbook] cpu: make Quick Quiz 3.6 more explicit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 07:15:56AM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 7:09 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 11:55:00AM +0800, zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Rewrite Quick Quiz 3.6 for clarity and explicitness, so that the
> > > firsttime reader know that another choice is CPU 0 sharing a core
> > > with CPU 1.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou<zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > hi Paul and Akira
> > >
> > > This minor fix is also reported by our Chinese version editor
> > > Yunjing Li.
> >
> > I have pulled this in, thanks to both you and the editor!  Would it be
> > appropriate to have the editor's reported-by?  (I trust your judgment
> > on this.  I am only asking, not in any way suggesting a change.)
> I think I should have the editor's report-by, but she is too modest to
> offer her email-address,
> because she thinks this is her job.
> 
> Could we add reported-by without an email address ? ;-)

We could just add a line saying something like:

	This change was identified by XXX YYYYY in the course of
	translating the book to Chinese.

Or something similar.  What would our editor like best?

For another option, I do sometimes do "Reported-by: LWN user xxxx"
or similar.

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanx, Zhouyi
> >
> >                                                         Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > Thanks
> > > Zhouyi
> > > --
> > >  cpu/overheads.tex | 3 ++-
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/cpu/overheads.tex b/cpu/overheads.tex
> > > index 1ee9c52f..a2ec2998 100644
> > > --- a/cpu/overheads.tex
> > > +++ b/cpu/overheads.tex
> > > @@ -262,7 +262,8 @@ CAS and lock, respectively.
> > >  \QuickQuiz{
> > >       \Cref{tab:cpu:CPU 0 View of Synchronization Mechanisms on 8-Socket System With Intel Xeon Platinum 8176 CPUs at 2.10GHz}
> > >       shows CPU~0 sharing a core with CPU~224.
> > > -     Shouldn't that instead be CPU~1???
> > > +     However, isn't it more logical for CPU 0
> > > +     to share a core with CPU 1 instead of CPU 224???
> > >  }\QuickQuizAnswer{
> > >       It is easy to be sympathetic to this view, but the file
> > >       \path{/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cache/index0/shared_cpu_list}
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
> 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux