On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 11:07:14AM -0800, Vipin Sharma <vipi...@google.com> wrote: > We should be fine without atomic64_t because we are using unsigned > long and not 64 bit explicitly. This will work on both 32 and 64 bit > machines. I see.
> But I will add READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE because of potential chances of > load tearing and store tearing. > > Do you agree? Yes. > This was only here to avoid multiple reads of capacity and making sure > if condition and seq_print will see the same value. Aha. > Also, I was not aware of load and store tearing of properly aligned > and machine word size variables. I will add READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE > at other places. Yeah, although it's theoretical, I think it also serves well to annotate such unsychronized accesses. Thanks, Michal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
