在没有AtomicPointer的情况下实现leveldb中的skiplist时会出现任何错误吗？

Question

由于SKiplist来源太长，我只是在下面发布SkipList::Insert的实施。根据源代码中的注释，AtomicPointer可以使另一个线程获得一个完整的初始化节点，但是，不使用AtomicPointer是什么样的？

template<typename Key, class Comparator>
void SkipList<Key,Comparator>::Insert(const Key& key) {
  // TODO(opt): We can use a barrier-free variant of FindGreaterOrEqual()
  // here since Insert() is externally synchronized.
  Node* prev[kMaxHeight];
  Node* x = FindGreaterOrEqual(key, prev);
  // Our data structure does not allow duplicate insertion
  assert(x == NULL || !Equal(key, x->key));

  int height = RandomHeight();
  if (height > GetMaxHeight()) {
    for (int i = GetMaxHeight(); i < height; i++) {
      prev[i] = head_;
    }
    //fprintf(stderr, "Change height from %d to %d\n", max_height_, height);

    // It is ok to mutate max_height_ without any synchronization
    // with concurrent readers.  A concurrent reader that observes
    // the new value of max_height_ will see either the old value of
    // new level pointers from head_ (NULL), or a new value set in
    // the loop below.  In the former case the reader will
    // immediately drop to the next level since NULL sorts after all
    // keys.  In the latter case the reader will use the new node.
    max_height_.NoBarrier_Store(reinterpret_cast<void*>(height));
  }

  x = NewNode(key, height);
  for (int i = 0; i < height; i++) {
    // NoBarrier_SetNext() suffices since we will add a barrier when
    // we publish a pointer to "x" in prev[i].
    x->NoBarrier_SetNext(i, prev[i]->NoBarrier_Next(i));
    prev[i]->SetNext(i, x);
  }
}