Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 May 2007 19:38:56 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil |
| |
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.
> 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."
David - 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/
| |