On 06.11.2019 16:44, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 06.11.2019 15:57, Jason Thorpe wrote: >> >> >>> On Nov 6, 2019, at 5:41 AM, Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> wrote: >>> >>> On 06.11.2019 14:37, Jason Thorpe wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 6, 2019, at 4:45 AM, Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I propose __write_relaxed() / __read_relaxed(). >>>> >>>> ...except that seems to imply the opposite of what these do. >>>> >>>> -- thorpej >>>> >>> >>> Rationale? >>> >>> This matches atomic_load_relaxed() / atomic_write_relaxed(), but we do >>> not deal with atomics here. >> >> Fair enough. To me, the names suggest "compiler is allowed to apply relaxed constraints and tear the access if it wants".... But apparently the common meaning is "relax, bro, I know what I'm doing". If that's the case, I can roll with it. >> >> -- thorpej >> > > Unless I mean something this is exactly about relaxed constraints. miss* > > "Relaxed operation: there are no synchronization or ordering constraints > imposed on other reads or writes" and without "operation's atomicity is > guaranteed". > > This is also similar to what suggested Google to apply to NetBSD in our > internal thread, but with a bit different naming. > Adding Marco to this thread.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature