Re: Inconsistent description in memory-barrier.txt

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > It looks like you are quite correct, good catch! Does the patch below > fix this? > > Thanx, Paul > > > >

Re: Inconsistent description in memory-barrier.txt

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:21:31PM +0800, Jianyu Zhan wrote: > Hi, Paul, > > I noticed that in the control dependency section in > memory-barrier.txt, you mistakenly made an inconsistent > description: > > On the description part: > > 641 It is tempting to try to enforce ordering on identical

Re: Inconsistent description in memory-barrier.txt

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:21:31PM +0800, Jianyu Zhan wrote: > Hi, Paul, > > I noticed that in the control dependency section in > memory-barrier.txt, you mistakenly made an inconsistent > description: > > On the description part: > > 641 It is tempting to try to enforce ordering on identical

Re: Inconsistent description in memory-barrier.txt

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > It looks like you are quite correct, good catch! Does the patch below > fix this? > > Thanx, Paul > >

Inconsistent description in memory-barrier.txt

Hi, Paul, I noticed that in the control dependency section in memory-barrier.txt, you mistakenly made an inconsistent description: On the description part: 641 It is tempting to try to enforce ordering on identical stores on both 642 branches of the "if" statement as follows: 643 644

Inconsistent description in memory-barrier.txt

Hi, Paul, I noticed that in the control dependency section in memory-barrier.txt, you mistakenly made an inconsistent description: On the description part: 641 It is tempting to try to enforce ordering on identical stores on both 642 branches of the "if" statement as follows: 643 644