Add a note about linearizable reads to Dc.9

Author: leventov

README.md

@@ -428,9 +428,15 @@ Similarly to what is noted in the previous item, justification for a lazily init
 `volatile` could be omitted if the lazy initialization pattern itself is identified, according to
 [Dc.4](#name-patterns).  When `volatile` on a field is needed to ensure *safe publication* of
 objects written into it (see [JCIP 3.5] or [here](
-https://shipilev.net/blog/2014/safe-public-construction/#_safe_publication)), then just mentioning
-"safe publication" in the Javadoc comment for the field is sufficient, it's not needed to elaborate
-the semantics of `volatile` which ensure the safe publication.
+https://shipilev.net/blog/2014/safe-public-construction/#_safe_publication)) or
+[linearizability of values observed by reader threads](#safe-local-dcl), then just mentioning
+"safe publication" or "linearizable reads" in the Javadoc comment for the field is sufficient, it's
+not needed to elaborate the semantics of `volatile` which ensure the safe publication or the
+linearizability.
+
+By extension, this item also applies when an `AtomicReference` (or a primitive atomic) is used
+instead of raw `volatile`, along with the consideration about [unnecessary
+atomic](#redundant-atomics) which might also be relevant in this case.
 
 <a name="plain-field"></a>
 [#](#plain-field) Dc.10. Is it explained in the **Javadoc comment for each mutable field in a