Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

[David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>]

On Wed, 9 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:

> > Thus, any reliance on type-qualifying an object that represents an atomic 
> > or locking primitive on the keyword 'volatile' is misplaced.
> 
> arch/foo is generally implementation specific code.
> 

That's true, but what qualifies as an "access" to an object that is 
type qualified with the 'volatile' keyword is _implementation_ defined, 
meaning the behavior is defined by the compiler and not this new 
architecture you're proposing 'volatile' is appropriate for.  That's pure 
C99.
-
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/