[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4640EAD4.9010106@garzik.org>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 17:25:40 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
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
Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 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.
Not sure how to interpret your top-posted response :)
It is normal in the definition of writel(), in arch code, but
inappropriate in drivers when they _use_ writel().
If I may generalize, arch code generally knows what it's doing, when it
uses volatile. OTOH, driver authors that use volatile generally do
/not/ know what they are doing.
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