(no commit message)

diff --git a/openpower/atomics.mdwn b/openpower/atomics.mdwn
index 6cf30a4dbecab9845bc40ed041f23c4f9530509d..ad304c5d7b0d6c9a85ccf9c3d4434d264a7bbca8 100644 (file)
--- a/openpower/atomics.mdwn
+++ b/openpower/atomics.mdwn
@@ -4,15 +4,16 @@ Links:
 
 * <https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236>
 * [OpenCAPI spec](http://opencapi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/OpenCAPI-TL.WGsec_.V3p1.2017Jan27.pdf) p47-49 for AMO section
+* [RISC-V A](https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/master/src/a.tex)
 
-## Motivation
+# Motivation
 
 Power ISA currently has some issues with its atomic operations support,
 which are exacerbated by 3D Data structure processing in 3D
 Shader Binaries needing
 of the order of 10^5 or greater atomic locks per second per SMP Core.
 
-### Power ISA's current atomic operations are inefficient
+## Power ISA's current atomic operations are inefficient
 
 Implementations have a hard time recognizing existing atomic operations
 via macro-op fusion because they would often have to detect and fuse a
@@ -85,7 +86,7 @@ skip:
 Having single atomic operations is useful for implementations that want to send atomic operations to a shared cache since they can be more efficient to execute there, rather than having to move a whole cache block. Relying exclusively on 
 TODO
 
-### Power ISA doesn't align well with C++11 atomics
+## Power ISA doesn't align well with C++11 atomics
 
 [P0668R5: Revising the C++ memory model](https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0668r5.html):
 
@@ -99,7 +100,7 @@ TODO
 > http://plv.mpi-sws.org/scfix/paper.pdf (which this discussion relies
 > on heavily).
 
-### Power ISA's Atomic-Memory-Operations have issues
+## Power ISA's Atomic-Memory-Operations have issues
 
 PowerISA v3.1 Book II section 4.5: Atomic Memory Operations