lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Documentation: improvement to volatile considered harmful (resubmit)
From
Date
Heikki Orsila <shdl@zakalwe.fi> wrote:

> 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.

I think that just dilutes the real point. It's not a choice between
locking and volatile - the locking must be there regardless. It's a
correctness issue; if the result happens to be more readable too that's
a bonus.

If somebody wants to put this sentence in I won't object, but I don't
think it really improves the document either.

Thanks,

jon
-
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: 2007-07-02 17:03    [W:0.087 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site