On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:49:09 -0700 Jason Low <jason.l...@hp.com> wrote:
> So I'll keep the READ_ONCE nested inside WRITE_ONCE for the purpose of > this patch since this patch is a conversion from ACCESS_ONCE, but yes, > if the original purpose of ACCESS_ONCE was to do an atomic increment, > then the ACCESS_ONCE doesn't help with that. For the purpose of this patch, I think it's fine, as being more paranoid is better than not being paranoid enough. But this has shined light onto whether it is needed or not, and we should figure that out in the not so far future. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
