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.
This patch is against 2.6.22-rc6.
Signed-off-by: Heikki Orsila <[email protected]>
diff --git a/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt b/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
index 10c2e41..ab9e62e 100644
--- a/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
+++ b/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
@@ -17,8 +17,9 @@ all optimization-related problems in a more efficient way.
Like volatile, the kernel primitives which make concurrent access to data
safe (spinlocks, mutexes, memory barriers, etc.) are designed to prevent
-unwanted optimization. If they are being used properly, there will be no
-need to use volatile as well. If volatile is still necessary, there is
+unwanted optimization. If they are being used properly, there will be no
+need to use volatile as well. Also, they make code more readable as they
+represent their intent explicitly. If volatile is still necessary, there is
almost certainly a bug in the code somewhere. In properly-written kernel
code, volatile can only serve to slow things down.
--
Heikki Orsila Barbie's law:
[email protected] "Math is hard, let's go shopping!"
http://www.iki.fi/shd
-
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]
