On 6/19/23 17:56, Huang, Kai wrote: > Any comments to below? Nothing that I haven't already said in this thread: > Just use a normal old atomic_t or set_bit()/test_bit(). They have > built-in memory barriers are are less likely to get botched. I kinda made a point of literally suggesting "atomic_t or set_bit()/test_bit()". I even told you why: "built-in memory barriers". Guess what READ/WRITE_ONCE() *don't* have. Memory barriers.
