On Llu, 2005-01-03 at 19:50, Alan Stern wrote: > Going in and inserting barriers by hand is a painstaking and > error-prone process, particularly when the code changes in the > future. By adding a single "volatile", I can make the compiler > do all that work for me, with no errors. > > In David's words, it's a tradeoff. As the maintainer, I decided to go > in favor of simplicity and ease-of-maintenance.
Thats unfortunate because we know from years of history its always been the wrong decision, that older gcc gets volatile wrong and that processor speculation which is not covered by volatile keywords still eats you alive on PPC platforms. Your choice as maintainer however if anyone would like to send alternate barrier based patches for 2.6.10-ac I'd appreciate it. Alan ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
