Re: [PATCH] DOCUMENTATION: Fixed typo in an example in memory-barriers.txt

2014-08-28 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 11:01:01AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 08/22/14 23:05, Ganesh Rapolu wrote: > > In the first example in the memory-barriers.txt file, CPU 2 is assigned to > > run (x = B; y = A;). However, the rest of the example proceeds as if CPU 2 > > had been > > running (x = A; y =

Re: [PATCH] DOCUMENTATION: Fixed typo in an example in memory-barriers.txt

2014-08-23 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 11:01:01AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 08/22/14 23:05, Ganesh Rapolu wrote: > > In the first example in the memory-barriers.txt file, CPU 2 is assigned to > > run (x = B; y = A;). However, the rest of the example proceeds as if CPU 2 > > had been > > running (x = A; y =

Re: [PATCH] DOCUMENTATION: Fixed typo in an example in memory-barriers.txt

2014-08-23 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 08/22/14 23:05, Ganesh Rapolu wrote: > In the first example in the memory-barriers.txt file, CPU 2 is assigned to > run (x = B; y = A;). However, the rest of the example proceeds as if CPU 2 > had been > running (x = A; y = B;) as shown by the descriptions of the possible > executions: > >

[PATCH] DOCUMENTATION: Fixed typo in an example in memory-barriers.txt

2014-08-22 Thread Ganesh Rapolu
In the first example in the memory-barriers.txt file, CPU 2 is assigned to run (x = B; y = A;). However, the rest of the example proceeds as if CPU 2 had been running (x = A; y = B;) as shown by the descriptions of the possible executions: STORE A=3, STORE B=4, x=LOAD A->3,y