Re: [PATCH -perfbook] cpu: make Quick Quiz 3.6 more explicit

Zhouyi Zhou <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.perfbook
Message-ID <CAABZP2wzPWy07CHeRS+aL9HZ6Hc8SMJOOvetaGzeDtTnRe7KPg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 7:22 AM Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 07:15:56AM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 7:09 AM Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 11:55:00AM +0800, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > From: Zhouyi Zhou <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > Rewrite Quick Quiz 3.6 for clarity and explicitness, so that the
> > > > firsttime reader know that another choice is CPU 0 sharing a core
> > > > with CPU 1.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou<[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > hi Paul and Akira
> > > >
> > > > This minor fix is also reported by our Chinese version editor
> > > > Yunjing Li.
> > >
> > > I have pulled this in, thanks to both you and the editor!  Would it be
> > > appropriate to have the editor's reported-by?  (I trust your judgment
> > > on this.  I am only asking, not in any way suggesting a change.)
> > I think I should have the editor's report-by, but she is too modest to
> > offer her email-address,
> > because she thinks this is her job.
> >
> > Could we add reported-by without an email address ? ;-)
>
> We could just add a line saying something like:
>
>         This change was identified by XXX YYYYY in the course of
>         translating the book to Chinese.
>
> Or something similar.  What would our editor like best?
>
> For another option, I do sometimes do "Reported-by: LWN user xxxx"
> or similar.
Thank Paul for your wonderful suggestion!
I guess our editor will like the first option best ;-)
I will send a new version of patch soon.

Thanks, Paul
>
>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>
> > Thanx, Zhouyi
> > >
> > >                                                         Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Zhouyi
> > > > --
> > > >  cpu/overheads.tex | 3 ++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/cpu/overheads.tex b/cpu/overheads.tex
> > > > index 1ee9c52f..a2ec2998 100644
> > > > --- a/cpu/overheads.tex
> > > > +++ b/cpu/overheads.tex
> > > > @@ -262,7 +262,8 @@ CAS and lock, respectively.
> > > >  \QuickQuiz{
> > > >       \Cref{tab:cpu:CPU 0 View of Synchronization Mechanisms on 8-Socket System With Intel Xeon Platinum 8176 CPUs at 2.10GHz}
> > > >       shows CPU~0 sharing a core with CPU~224.
> > > > -     Shouldn't that instead be CPU~1???
> > > > +     However, isn't it more logical for CPU 0
> > > > +     to share a core with CPU 1 instead of CPU 224???
> > > >  }\QuickQuizAnswer{
> > > >       It is easy to be sympathetic to this view, but the file
> > > >       \path{/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cache/index0/shared_cpu_list}
> > > > --
> > > > 2.34.1
> > > >
> >
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.