On Fri, 16 Nov 2018, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > -let rcu-rscsi = po ; rcu-rscs^-1 ; po?
> > +let rcu-gp = [Sync-rcu](* Compare with gp *)
> > +let rcu-rscsi = rcu-rscs^-1
>
> Isn't it more straight-forward to use "rcu-rscs^-1" other than
> "rcu-rscsi" in the definition of "rcu-fence", is
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > -let rcu-rscsi = po ; rcu-rscs^-1 ; po?
> > +let rcu-gp = [Sync-rcu](* Compare with gp *)
> > +let rcu-rscsi = rcu-rscs^-1
>
> Isn't it more straight-forward to use "rcu-rscs^-1" other than
> "rcu-rscsi" in the definition of "rcu-fence", is
Hi Alan,
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:19:58AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> In preparation for adding support for SRCU, refactor the definitions
> of rcu-fence, rcu-rscsi, rcu-link, and rb by moving the po and po?
> terms from the first two to the second two. An rcu-gp relation is
> added; it is
Hi Alan,
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:19:58AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> In preparation for adding support for SRCU, refactor the definitions
> of rcu-fence, rcu-rscsi, rcu-link, and rb by moving the po and po?
> terms from the first two to the second two. An rcu-gp relation is
> added; it is
In preparation for adding support for SRCU, refactor the definitions
of rcu-fence, rcu-rscsi, rcu-link, and rb by moving the po and po?
terms from the first two to the second two. An rcu-gp relation is
added; it is equivalent to gp with the po and po? terms removed.
This is necessary because for
In preparation for adding support for SRCU, refactor the definitions
of rcu-fence, rcu-rscsi, rcu-link, and rb by moving the po and po?
terms from the first two to the second two. An rcu-gp relation is
added; it is equivalent to gp with the po and po? terms removed.
This is necessary because for
6 matches
Mail list logo
