linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/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]

Message-ID: <4640EB19.6030005@oracle.com>
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2007 14:26:49 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> No, David means that "asm volatile (...)" is meaningful and OK to use.

I thought it was OK in readl(), writel(), etc... (and in asm),
but that's it.  (and jiffies)

> 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.


-- 
~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 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/