Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: submit-checklist: change to autonumbered lists

+#. Builds cleanly: > >a) with applicable or modified ``CONFIG`` options ``=y``, ``=m``, and > ``=n``. No ``gcc`` warnings/errors, no linker warnings/errors. While the first item needs "a)", subsequent items can use "#)". Either way, Reviewed-by: Akira Yokosawa Thanks, Akira

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] docs: submit-checklist: change to autonumbered lists

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 08:55:51 -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Akira Yokosawa writes: > >>> -1) If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares >>> +#. If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares >>> that facility. D

Re: [PATCH] tools: memory-model: add it to the Documentation body

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:52:05 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > >> Em Tue, 30 Jul 2019 18:17:01 -0400 >> Joel Fernandes escreveu: > > (4) I would argue that every occurence of > A ->(some dependency) B should be replaced with fixed size font in

[PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

>From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Akira Yokosawa Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:25:33 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example In commit 5646f7acc95f ("memory-barriers: Fix control-ordering no-transitivity exampl

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: cross-reference "tools/memory-model/"

On 2018/02/09 21:50, Andrea Parri wrote: > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 04:31:00AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 07:37:08PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: >>> Hi Akira, >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 01:14:10AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: cross-reference "tools/memory-model/"

gt;> >>>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 01:14:10AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>> CC: Andrea >>>>> >>>>> This is intentionally off the list, as I was not cc'd in the thread. >>>>> If you think

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On 2017/07/20 2:43, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:24:42PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> >From b798b9b631e237d285aa8699da00bfb8ced33bea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Akira Yokosawa >> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:25:33 +0900 >> Subject: [PAT

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On 2017/07/20 14:47, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:31:41AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 02:56:02PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:33:26AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >>>> On 2017/07/2

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On 2017/07/20 09:11:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:55:31PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> On 2017/07/20 14:47, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:31:41AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 02:5

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On 2017/07/20 14:42:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 06:12:56AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> On 2017/07/20 09:11:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:55:31PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >>>> On 2017/07/20

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On 2017/07/20 16:07:14 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 07:52:03AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> On 2017/07/20 14:42:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: [...] >>> For the compilers I know about at the present time, yes. >> >> So if I respin th

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

D_ONCE() is good enough now? > > Regards, > Boqun > > ----->8 > Subject: [PATCH] kernel: Emphasize the return value of READ_ONCE() is honored > > READ_ONCE() is used around in kernel to provide a control dependency, > and to make the control dependency valid, we

Re: [PATCH] documentation: Fix two-CPU control-dependency example

On 2017/07/24 14:34:07 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:04:57AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > [...] >>> >>> ->8 >>> Subject: [PATCH] kernel: Emphasize the return value of READ_ONCE() is >>> honored >>>

Re: [PATCH] docs: Remove literal markup from Documentation/ paths

Hi, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote: > Given that the automarkup Sphinx plugin cross-references > "Documentation/*.rst" strings in the text to the corresponding > documents, surrounding those strings with the literal markup (``) not > only adds unnecessary markup in the source files, but actually pre

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kcsan: fix "Plain Accesses and Data Races" URL in kcsan.rst

Hello, Ignacio Encinas Rubio wrote: > On 12/3/25 23:36, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> It would be best, of course, to get the memory-model documentation >> properly into our built docs...someday... > > I hadn't thought about this. If this sentiment is shared by the LKMM > people I would be happy to w

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: validate commit tag ordering

Hello, On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 09:20:32 +0200, Hendrik Hamerlinck wrote: > Modified the checkpatch script to ensure that commit tags (e.g., > Signed-off-by, Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by, etc.) appear in the > correct order according to kernel conventions [1]. > > checkpatch.pl will now emit a BAD

Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: changes: better document Python needs

[+CC Laurent and Jani] Hi, On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 16:54:29 +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Python is listed as an optional dependency, but this is not > true, as: > > 1) CONFIG_LTO_CLANG runs a python script at scripts/Makefile.vmlinux_o; > > 2) kernel-doc is called during compilation when s

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] docs: changes: better document Python needs

; +default configs, CONFIG_LTO_CLANG, some DRM optional configs, > +the kernel-doc tool, and docs build (Sphinx), among others. > + Looks much better. Feel free to add: Acked-by: Akira Yokosawa Thanks.