On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:23:59PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> We also don't have __atomic_read() and __atomic_set(), yet atomic_read()
> and atomic_set() are considered to be non-racy, right?
What is racy? :-) You can make data races with atomic_{read,set}() just
fine.
Anyway, traditionally we call the read-modify-write stuff atomic, not
the trivial load-store stuff. The only reason we care about the
load-store stuff in the first place is because C compilers are shit.
atomic_read() / test_bit() are just a load, all we need is the C
compiler not to be an ass and split it. Yes, we've invented the term
single-copy atomicity for that, but that doesn't make it more or less of
a load.
And exactly because it is just a load, there is no __test_bit(), which
would be the exact same load.
