[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47ED5A40.9020307@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:51:12 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: use of volatile in iounmap()?
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> While reviewing some CAN driver I stumbled on iounmap
> which has following prototype on x86:
>
> extern void iounmap(volatile void __iomem *addr);
>
> I argued that the driver should not use volatile
> but then I cannot explain why the argument to
> iounmap takes a volatile.
>
> The same goes for many other functions in
> the io*.h headers.
>
> Grepping the other archs they mostly follow
> same pattern.
>
> Can anyone explain the rational for volatile in this case.
>
Yes. The use of volatile in a function prototype like this means that
it is valid to pass a volatile pointer to that function -- in other
words, we're telling gcc that we're not going to do anything with the
pointer that is invalid for a volatile pointer.
A lot of the "volatile considered harmful" stuff that has been bandied
about is explicitly about marking *data* items volatile (it does have
its uses, but it's easy to get wrong); Linus has explicitly made the
distinction between volatile *data* and volatile *operations*.
-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