lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSat, 12 May 2007 09:22:00 +0200
FromStefan Richter <>
SubjectRe: [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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-12 09:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2008