lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-01 14:29    [W:0.047 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site