On 5/8/07, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:56:42 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:
> Oh my eyes. What are these doing?
>
> The volatiles are a worry - volatile is said to be basically-always-wrong
> in-kernel, although we've never managed to document why, and i386
> cheerfully uses it in readb() and friends.
>
> Perhaps if you can describe presisely what's going on here, alternatives
> might be suggested.
[well, can be turned into a patch]
Here are some 'volatile' comments from Linus, extracted from
several emails in at least 2 threads.
If this is close to useful, we can add it to Documentation/.
Yes, definitely. Say Documentation/volatile-usage.txt -- this raw
version could be touched a little bit, to have sections that clearly
explain (1) how volatile makes the compiler generate trashy code, (2)
why volatile doesn't even do what people _think_ it does, considering
code is executed out-of-order by _hardware_ these days and not due to
compilers like was the case 20 years back, (3) and so volatile ends up
_hiding_ bugs from people and thus should be consigned to the trash
can of history, (4) _except_ for _really special_ usage cases like
reading IO mapped as memory.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
