linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: improvement to volatile considered harmful (resubmit)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <15122.1183388385@lwn.net>
Date:	Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:59:45 -0600
From:	corbet@....net (Jonathan Corbet)
To:	Heikki Orsila <shdl@...alwe.fi>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rdunlap@...otime.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: improvement to volatile considered harmful (resubmit) 

Heikki Orsila <shdl@...alwe.fi> wrote:

> I'm resubmitting this as I didn't get any replies, this time CCeing 
> proper people, sorry..
> 
> Kernel locking/synchronization primitives are better than volatile types 
> from code readability point of view also.

I think that just dilutes the real point.  It's not a choice between
locking and volatile - the locking must be there regardless.  It's a
correctness issue; if the result happens to be more readable too that's
a bonus.

If somebody wants to put this sentence in I won't object, but I don't
think it really improves the document either.

Thanks,

jon
-
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/