On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 12:05:39PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > Because pids->limit can be changed concurrently (but we don't want to > take a lock because it would be needlessly expensive), use the > appropriate memory barriers. I can't quite tell what problem it's fixing. Can you elaborate a scenario where the current code would break that your patch fixes? Thanks. -- tejun
