Re: membar_enter semantics

[Edgar Fuß <ef%math.uni-bonn.de@localhost>]

I know close to nothing about the subject in question, but maybe thoughts from 
a non-expert may be useful:

If there's a widely adopted terminology, one should probably stick to it even 
if the wording is counter-intuitive or misleading (but note that fact in the 
documentation). After all, Simple Groups are not easy at all and you need to
 know about Galois Theory to understand why Solvable Groups are named that way.

If the operations are called foo-before-bar, I would have to look up 
documentation on every instance to understand what the intended usage is. 
So for me, naming the operations after what they do, but have aliases for 
intended usage would make sense.

When I read frozz_enter() and frozz_exit() in code, my expectation is that 
every call fo enter is paired with a call to exit _in the control flow_, i.e., 
there's no (other than panic) code path that goes through one of them, but 
not the other.

Would it make sense to call the intended-usage aliases something like 
push/pull, provide/consume or publish/whatever?