[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180524223244.GO12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 00:32:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h: Rewrite using
atomic_fetch_*
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:06:10AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > As an aside, If I complete the autogeneration stuff, it'll be possible
> > to generate those. I split out the necessary barriers in [1], but I
> > still have a lot of other preparatory cleanup to do.
>
> I do grasp the rationale behind that naming:
>
> __atomic_mb_{before,after}_{acquire,release,fence}()
>
> and yet I remain puzzled by it:
>
> For example, can you imagine (using):
>
> __atomic_mb_before_acquire() ?
>
> (as your __atomic_mb_after_acquire() is whispering me "acquire-fences"...)
Yes, I really do think he means acquire-fence. It is however something I
have vague memories of not being liked much because it is the memop
itself that carries the ordering.
That said, this is only an implementation detail and not a public
interface, so maybe we can get away with it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists