[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4640E8C4.4000603@garzik.org>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 17:16:52 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> No, David means that "asm volatile (...)" is meaningful and OK to use.
In a driver? Highly unlikey it is OK. In a filesystem? Even more
unlikely it is OK to use.
The set of circumstances where 'volatile' is acceptable is very limited.
You will see it used properly in the definitions of writel(), for
example. But most drivers using 'volatile' are likely bugs.
Jeff
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists