[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46460223.5090909@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 11:06:27 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
CC: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Stezenbach <js@...uxtv.org>,
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Heikki Orsila <shdl@...alwe.fi>,
jimmy bahuleyan <knight.camelot@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
Stefan Richter wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> [slightly off topic: GCCisms in Linux kernel]
>> It contains *many* constructs that are not defined in, for
>> example, C99, and it would in fact be impossible to write the Linux
>> kernel using only C99-compliant constructs.
>
> True. On the other hand, it is possible to keep large parts of the
> kernel independent of compiler implementation details. And it is not
> only possible but also beneficial, e.g. because the compiler's
> implementation changes over time.
It is, but this is not likely to be one of those things.
Either way, I fully agree with the following (from Jeff):
> jimmy bahuleyan wrote:
>> i believe, the doc here is pretty unambiguous regarding the fact that
>> volatile should be avoided. And as Stefan pointed out, anyone who feels
>> the need to use, must surely _know_ what he is doing & hence is in a
>> position t make that decision
>
> Honestly, the above quoted paragraph states the situation better than any long, complicated document.
-hpa
-
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