On Tue, 8 May 2007 17:06:23 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 8 May 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > From: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Add information on the problems with the C-language "volatile" keyword > > and why it should not be used (most of the time). > > > > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > Documentation/volatile-usage.txt | 129 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+) > > > > --- /dev/null > > +++ linux-2.6.21-git10/Documentation/volatile-usage.txt > > @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ > > +***** "volatile" considered useless and evil: Just Say NO! ***** > > + > > +Do not use the C-language "volatile" keyword > > +(extracted from lkml emails from Linus) > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > Again, please change this sweeping introduction to explicitly state that > Linus' emails were a criticism of using 'volatile' for objects (he refers > to them as "data structures") and can be appropriate for asm constructs.
You haven't replied to my other emails... "volatile" used on a gcc asm extension is different, granted. It's not even a C-language "volatile" keyword AFAICT, so it doesn't apply in this context. Anyway, how is this slightly modified title? +***** "volatile" considered useless and evil: Just Say NO! ***** + +Do not use the C-language "volatile" keyword on kernel data +(extracted from lkml emails from Linus) --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/