Re: [PATCH] Documentation: improvement to volatile considered harmful (resubmit)

[Jonathan Corbet]

Heikki Orsila <shdl@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/