On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:51:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:01:25AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > I don't quite see the point of this. You're not suggesting that we
> > have one Linux Kernel Memory Consistency Model for s390 and another
> > one for all the other architectures, are you?
> >
> > If the idea is merely to provide a herd model for s390 then it should
> > go into the DIY repository, not into the LKMM repository.
>
> I suspect the use-case was validating s390 arch code which might not
> have followed all the regular linux rules because they know its TSO. But
> yes, I'm tempted to agree that even arch specific code ought to follow
> the regular rules, just to avoid completely messing up the reader.
Another use case is testing an s390 .cat file without having to teach
herd about s390 assembly. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
