From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model] Add s390.{cfg,cat} Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:48:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20180328134813.GF4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20180328134232.GA29274@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180328134232.GA29274@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@gmail.com, will.deacon@arm.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:42:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Hello! > > The prototype patch shown below provides files required to allow herd7 to > evaluate C-language litmus tests for the multicopy-atomic TSO ordering > provided by s390. There really isn't anything s390 specific here is there? That is, would this not equally work for x86 and sparc, both of which are similarly TSO ? Given that, should this not be called TSO instead of s390 ?