On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 06:57:07AM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote: > > 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.
What is the compiler / implementation supposed to do if there is no way to do a single instruction load/store for the argument size? Do we want sized versions instead and only provide the ones that are available on a given architecture? If both names and semantics are unclear, adding the macros maybe not a good idea ;-) Martin