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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:30:46 +0300 From: Heikki Orsila <shdl@...alwe.fi> To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: [PATCH] Documentation: improvement to volatile considered harmful Kernel locking/synchronization primitives are better than volatile types from code readability point of view also. This patch is against 2.6.22-rc6. Signed-off-by: Heikki Orsila <heikki.orsila@....fi> diff --git a/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt b/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt index 10c2e41..ab9e62e 100644 --- a/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt +++ b/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt @@ -17,8 +17,9 @@ all optimization-related problems in a more efficient way. Like volatile, the kernel primitives which make concurrent access to data safe (spinlocks, mutexes, memory barriers, etc.) are designed to prevent -unwanted optimization. If they are being used properly, there will be no -need to use volatile as well. If volatile is still necessary, there is +unwanted optimization. If they are being used properly, there will be no +need to use volatile as well. Also, they make code more readable as they +represent their intent explicitly. If volatile is still necessary, there is almost certainly a bug in the code somewhere. In properly-written kernel code, volatile can only serve to slow things down. - 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