Re: __{read,write}_once

[Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 09:57, Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost> 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.

Honestly, without reading any code, I interpretation is more inline
with the former:
  hey relax, maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't but well, nothing
matters so what ever