Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 08 May 2007 14:26:49 -0700 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil |
| |
Jeff Garzik wrote: > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> No, David means that "asm volatile (...)" is meaningful and OK to use.
I thought it was OK in readl(), writel(), etc... (and in asm), but that's it. (and jiffies)
> In a driver? Highly unlikey it is OK. In a filesystem? Even more > unlikely it is OK to use. > > The set of circumstances where 'volatile' is acceptable is very limited. > > You will see it used properly in the definitions of writel(), for > example. But most drivers using 'volatile' are likely bugs.
-- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** - 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/
| |