On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 11:07:14AM -0800, Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@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