Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

[Randy Dunlap]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > No, David means that "asm volatile (...)" is meaningful and OK to use.

I thought it was OK in readl(), writel(), etc... (and in asm),
but that's it.  (and jiffies)

> 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.


--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
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/