[RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

Paul E. McKenney paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Sat Feb 15 06:58:00 GMT 2014

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:35:44PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 06:48:02PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > And conversely, the C11 people can walk away from us too. But if they
> > > can't make us happy (and by "make us happy", I really mean no stupid
> > > games on our part) I personally think they'll have a stronger
> > > standard, and a real use case, and real arguments. I'm assuming they
> > > want that.
> > 
> > I should have somebody who proof-reads my emails before I send them out.
> > 
> > I obviously meant "if they *can* make us happy" (not "can't").
> Understood.  My next step is to take a more detailed look at the piece
> of the standard that should support RCU.  Depending on how that turns
> out, I might look at other parts of the standard vs. Linux's atomics
> and memory-ordering needs.  Should be interesting.  ;-)

And perhaps a better way to represent the roles is that I am not the
buyer, but rather the purchasing agent for the -potential- buyer.  -You-
are of course the potential buyer.

If I were to see myself as the buyer, then I must confess that the
concerns you implicitly expressed in your prior email would be all too

							Thanx, Paul

More information about the Gcc mailing list