[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070508201542.3f4ebd5e.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 20:15:42 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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 19:38:56 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes wrote:
> 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.
touche'
> > 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."
OK, I can accept that.
---
~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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists