Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
No, David means that "asm volatile (...)" is meaningful and OK to use.
In a driver? Highly unlikey it is OK. In a filesystem? Even more unlikely it is OK to use.
The set of circumstances where 'volatile' is acceptable is very limited.You will see it used properly in the definitions of writel(), for example. But most drivers using 'volatile' are likely bugs.
Jeff - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- References:
- [RFC, PATCH 2/4] SoC base drivers: ASIC3 SoC hardware definitions
- From: Paul Sokolovsky <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 2/4] SoC base drivers: ASIC3 SoC hardware definitions
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: Krzysztof Halasa <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- [RFC, PATCH 2/4] SoC base drivers: ASIC3 SoC hardware definitions
- Prev by Date: Re: "modularized" 2.4.34.4 -> ide-core "unresolved symbols"
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [POWERPC] 8xx: mpc885ads pcmcia support
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- Index(es):
 |