On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 03:57:25PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > It's more fun, for the atomic functions which don't have the atomic_ > prefix in their names, the __ prefixed versions provide the non-atomic > implementation. This pattern was started with the long * bitops stuff for > managing really big bitmasks. > > And I really don't think it's a great function name scheme that we should > proliferate. FWIW I agree it's not great, but we're stuck between a rock and a bikeshed w.r.t. better naming -- it's quite hard to clean that up becuase the atomic_*() namespace is reserved for atomic_t (and mirrors atomic64_*() and atomic_long_*()). We could consider renaming atomic_t to atomic32_t and atomic_*() to atomic32_*(), which'd free up the atomic_*() namespace for more genral usage (e.g. allowing us to have atomic_xchg() and xhcg(), with the latter not being atomic). Thanks, Mark.
