On 06/20/2013 06:42 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Chen, > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote: >> > On 06/20/2013 05:07 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> > > If A is semantically the same as B, then B is semantically the same as >>> > > A. At least that's the common understanding. >>> > > >> > >> > From A to B is OK. >> > >> > Not means: >> > >> > From B to A is also OK. > Either you're questioning logic, math and fundamental basics of > computer science or you simply fail to grok the difference between > semantics and implementation details. See below. > >>> > > Yes, it depends on the implementation, but all implementations do: >>> > > >>> > > local_irq_save(flags); >>> > > arch_spin_lock_flags(l, flags); >>> > > >> > >> > Yes this is spin_lock_irqsave(). >> > >> > At least, this implemenation is not equal to. >> > >> > local_irq_save(flags); >> > spin_lock(l); > Again. It is semantically the same, because the semantics are: > > spin_lock_irqsave() returns with interrupts disabled, preemption > disabled and the lock acquired. > > This construct exactly follows these semantics: > > local_irq_save(flags); > spin_lock(l); > > After spin_lock(l) interrupts are disabled, preemption is disabled and > the lock is acquired. End of discussion. >
OK, end of discussion. It is a polite. > I wasted enough time explaining you the difference between semantics > and implementation, but you seem to be simply advisory restistant. > Yes, time resources are really very expensive for every members. > And I already told you very impolite in the other thread, that I'm not > going to cope with such nonsense anymore. And yes, I'm tired of it. > OK, I don't care about it. We just stop now. :-) > Provide factual prove, that there is a bug in the code. And to prove > that, you actually need to understand the code and the basic concepts > behind it. > > If you keep up pursuing your contributions plan at the expense of my > and other peoples valuable time, I consider this as extremly impolite > from your side. The form of collaboration you are going to achieve > this way is an entry in my /dev/null mail filter. Don't worry about it, and why worry about it ? Thanks. -- Chen Gang Asianux Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
