Re: fetch32/store32 et al

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20091024203507.03CD563B151%mail.netbsd.org@localhost>,
Mindaugas Rasiukevicius  <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Unless anyone objects, I would like to replace current fuword(), suword()
>and friends with a little bit better API:
>
>       int     fetch32(void *addr, uint32_t *c);
>       int     store32(void *addr, uint32_t c);
>
>And equivalent routines to fetch/store 8, 16 and 64 (if needed) bit values.
>Routines would return 0 on success and EFAULT on failure.
>
>Rationale:  1) there are already bugs in the tree where incorrect sizes of
>"word" are assumed (e.g. see amd64 fuword)  2) currently, fuword() et al
>cannot return -1 as a value.
>
>Also, this would be consistent with atomic_ops(3) and would close PR/2512.

Sounds good to me...

christos