Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

[Randy Dunlap]

On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:38:56 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes wrote:

> On Tue, 8 May 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
> > "volatile" used on a gcc asm extension is different, granted.
> > It's not even a C-language "volatile" keyword AFAICT, so it doesn't
> > apply in this context.
> > 
> 
> Using 'volatile' for an asm construct certainly is a keyword; in fact, C99 
> defines 'volatile' as a token which is reserved for use as a keyword.

touche'

> > Anyway, how is this slightly modified title?
> > 
> > +***** "volatile" considered useless and evil:  Just Say NO! *****
> > +
> > +Do not use the C-language "volatile" keyword on kernel data
> > +(extracted from lkml emails from Linus)
> > 
> 
> It's still ambiguous.  A much more explicit title that nobody could argue 
> with would be "do not use the 'volatile' keyword as a type qualifier for 
> an object."

OK, I can accept that.

---
~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/