Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 8 May 2007 20:15:42 -0700 | | From | Randy Dunlap <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil |
| |
On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:38:56 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > "volatile" used on a gcc asm extension is different, granted. > > It's not even a C-language "volatile" keyword AFAICT, so it doesn't > > apply in this context. > > > > Using 'volatile' for an asm construct certainly is a keyword; in fact, C99 > defines 'volatile' as a token which is reserved for use as a keyword.
touche'
> > Anyway, how is this slightly modified title? > > > > +***** "volatile" considered useless and evil: Just Say NO! ***** > > + > > +Do not use the C-language "volatile" keyword on kernel data > > +(extracted from lkml emails from Linus) > > > > It's still ambiguous. A much more explicit title that nobody could argue > with would be "do not use the 'volatile' keyword as a type qualifier for > an object."
OK, I can accept that.
--- ~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/
|  |