On 06.11.2019 15:57, Jason Thorpe wrote: > > >> On Nov 6, 2019, at 5:41 AM, Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com> wrote: >> >> On 06.11.2019 14:37, Jason Thorpe wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 6, 2019, at 4:45 AM, Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com> 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. "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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
