linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 8 May 2007 19:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
cc:	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

On Tue, 8 May 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:

> "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.
> 

Using 'volatile' for an asm construct certainly is a keyword; in fact, C99 
defines 'volatile' as a token which is reserved for use as a keyword.

> 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)
> 

It's still ambiguous.  A much more explicit title that nobody could argue 
with would be "do not use the 'volatile' keyword as a type qualifier for 
an object."

		David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/