Hi,
On 30/04/2019 16:27, Marc Zyngier wrote:
[...]
>>> @@ -372,6 +392,7 @@ static u32 notrace sun50i_a64_read_cntv_tval_el0(void)
>>> DEFINE_PER_CPU(const struct arch_timer_erratum_workaround *,
>>> timer_unstable_counter_workaround);
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(timer_unstable_counter_workaround);
>>>
>>> +static atomic_t timer_unstable_counter_workaround_in_use = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>>
>> Wouldn't make sense to READ_ONCE / WRITE_ONCE instead of using an atomic?
>
> I don't think *_ONCE says anything about the atomicity of the access. It
> only instruct the compiler that this should only be accessed once, and
> not reloaded/rewritten.
FWIW 7bd3e239d6c6 ("locking: Remove atomicy checks from {READ,WRITE}_ONCE")
points this out.
[...]
