Heikki Orsila <[email protected]> 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 [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]
