Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:26:22 +0300 | From | Heikki Orsila <> | Subject | [PATCH] Documentation: improvement to volatile considered harmful (resubmit) |
| |
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.
This patch is against 2.6.22-rc6.
Signed-off-by: Heikki Orsila <heikki.orsila@iki.fi>
diff --git a/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt b/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt index 10c2e41..ab9e62e 100644 --- a/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt +++ b/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt @@ -17,8 +17,9 @@ all optimization-related problems in a more efficient way. Like volatile, the kernel primitives which make concurrent access to data safe (spinlocks, mutexes, memory barriers, etc.) are designed to prevent -unwanted optimization. If they are being used properly, there will be no -need to use volatile as well. If volatile is still necessary, there is +unwanted optimization. If they are being used properly, there will be no +need to use volatile as well. Also, they make code more readable as they +represent their intent explicitly. If volatile is still necessary, there is almost certainly a bug in the code somewhere. In properly-written kernel code, volatile can only serve to slow things down. -- Heikki Orsila Barbie's law: heikki.orsila@iki.fi "Math is hard, let's go shopping!" http://www.iki.fi/shd - 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/
| |