* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 01:21:45PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > - Renaming fetch_or() to xchg_or(), recognizing that the semantics
> > are xchg()-alike.
>
> Let me add another argument for why I don't like the "exchange/swap
> (and) add" naming.
>
> Exchange (and swap) replace one value for another, like:
>
> old = xchg(ptr, val);
>
> Whatever was there, gets replaced by the independent value in @val.
> Straight up replacement.
>
> However with something like xchg_or, you don't do a direct replacement
> with an unrelated value. Instead you modify the pre-existing value. So
> there really isn't an exchange at all.
>
> So "fetch (and) or" really describes the operation better. You load
> (fetch) the value and then modify it, in an indivisible (aka atomic)
> fashion.
Ok!
Could we at least somehow sneak the notion of 'atomicity' into it?
fetch_or()
fetch_and()
fetch_not()
vs.
fetch_atomic_or()
fetch_atomic_and()
fetch_atomic_not()
vs.
atomic_fetch_or()
atomic_fetch_and()
atomic_fetch_not()
?
Thanks,
Ingo
