On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:54 PM Pavel Begunkov [off-list ref] wrote:

On 6/23/21 7:41 AM, Dmitry Kadashev wrote:

quoted

I'd imagine READ_ONCE is to be used in those checks though, isn't it? Some of
the existing checks like this lack it too btw. I suppose I can fix those in a
separate commit if that makes sense.

When we really use a field there should be a READ_ONCE(),
but I wouldn't care about those we check for compatibility
reasons, but that's only my opinion.

I'm not sure how the compatibility check reads are special. The code is
either correct or not. If a compatibility check has correctness problems
then it's pretty much as bad as any other part of the code having such
problems, no?

That said, I'll just go ahead and use the approach that the rest of the
code (or rather most of it) uses (no READ_ONCE). If it needs fixing then
the whole bunch can probably be fixed in one go (either a single patch
or a series).

Thanks for your help, Pavel!

-- 
Dmitry Kadashev