David S. Miller wrote:
> Absolutely, I agree. My fingers even itched as I typed those lines
> in. I didn't change the wording because I couldn't come up with
> anything better.
How about something like:
Unlike the above routines, atomic_???_return are required to perform
memory barriers [...]
I think "implicit" and "explicit" here are just confusing, because
you don't define them, and there's no intuitively correct meaning
either.
Perhaps a little warning could also be useful for the reader who
wasn't paying close attention to whose role is described:
Note: this means that a caller of atomic_add, etc., who needs a
memory barrier before or after that call has to code the memory
barrier explicitly, whereas a caller of atomic_???_return can rely
on said functions to provide the barrier without further ado. For
the implementor of the atomic functions, the roles are reversed.
> You still get the memory barrier, whether you read the return
> value or not.
That might be something worth mentioning. Not that a construct
is used that gcc can optimize away when nobody cares about the
return value.
- Werner
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
|