| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <46456B18.9060605@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 09:22:00 +0200 From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> To: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com> CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.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 Satyam Sharma wrote: > Coming back to the document, we do need to document / find > consensus on the "preferred" way to do similar business in the > kernel, and my opinion as far as that is concerned is to shun > volatile wherever possible (which includes the case originally > discussed above). I too recommend that volatile-considered-harmful.txt is not watered down by an ever growing "but if" list. If anybody knows what he does, he still can program in a deviating way --- provided that he leaves a brief comment in the code, telling why it is possible and beneficial to use the volatile qualifier in this special case. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -=-= -==-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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