On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:13:48PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 04:43:46PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > > > > It seems reasonable to ask people to learn that locks have stronger > > > > ordering guarantees than RMW atomics do. Maybe not the greatest > > > > situation in the world, but one I think we could live with. > > > > > > Yeah, this was one of my main objections. > > > > Does this mean you don't think you could live with it? > > Well, I *could* leave with it and with RCtso locks, ;-) but I'd rather not. > > Assuming that I will not be able to resist this RCtso trend, ;-) would the > below (completely untested) work? > > let rmw = rmw | lk-rmw (* from lock.cat *) > let po-unlock-rf-lock-po = po ; [Release] ; rf ; [domain(rmw)] ; po
domain(rmw) & Acquire, maybe... Andrea > [the rest of your patch + the updates to the doc. I suggested in v2 ;-)] > > Andrea
