Linus Torvalds writes: (Summary) On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
What is the reason for the READ_ONCE() here (and in the other case)? What is the reason for the READ_ONCE() here (and in the other case)? It's a "stable" per-cpu value in that even if an NMI were to happen, it gets incremented and then decremented, so there is nothing really volatile about it anywhere that I can see.
anywhere that I can see.
So the READ_ONCE() seems to be just pure confusion. So the READ_ONCE() seems to be just pure confusion.
[...]
+What is the reason for the READ_ONCE() here (and in the other case)? What is the reason for the READ_ONCE() here (and in the other case)? It's a "stable" per-cpu value in that even if an NMI were to happen, it gets incremented and then decremented, so there is nothing really volatile about it anywhere that I can see.
anywhere that I can see.
So the READ_ONCE() seems to be just pure confusion. So the READ_ONCE() seems to be just pure confusion.