Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3

[Jeff Garzik]

Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 5/11/07, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +  - Pointers to data structures in coherent memory which might be 
> > modified
> > +    by I/O devices can, sometimes, legitimately be volatile.  A ring 
> > buffer
> > +    used by a network adapter, where that adapter changes pointers to
> > +    indicate which descriptors have been processed, is an example of 
> > this
> > +    type of situation.
>
> is a legitimate use case for volatile is still not clear to me (I

IMO it is not.  We do /not/ want to encourage volatile use in those 
cases, and indeed, it's not necessary even if you can rationalize the 
use of the English word "volatile" to describe the situation.

Drivers work quite well without volatile in such situations.

	Jeff


-
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/