Il 01/07/2013 15:00, Anthony Liguori ha scritto: >> I >> > cannot find the commit exactly, but I think mst added specific code for >> > that. > Right, I'm not questioning whether these functions have strong enough > semantics in their implementation, but asking what their contract should > be. > > Either we should document that these functions have atomic semantics or > we should introduce another variant that guarantee atomic access. > > I think the later makes more sense since the majority of users probably > don't need atomic semantics.
I think many of these loads and stores do, actually; perhaps most. It also matches what hardware does. Paolo
