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: <alpine.DEB.0.99.0705081650530.28511@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2007 16:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
cc:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

On Tue, 8 May 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:

> It's already there, isn't it?  <quote from original:>
> 
> The only acceptable uses for "volatile" are:
> 
>  - in _code_, i.e., for things like the definition of "readb()" etc, where we
>    use it to force a particular access.
>  - with inline asms
>  - on "jiffies", for stupid legacy reasons
> 
> </quote>
> 
> or are you saying that you want to subject/header/title modified also?
> 

I wasn't aware that you were considering the inclusion of Linus' entire 
email in the document.  There exists a point where CodingStyle becomes so 
large that people choose not to read it in its entirety, so I was 
expecting only an addition that would explicit document the acceptable and
unacceptable uses of 'volatile' in kernel code with perhaps a link to his 
email.
-
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/