Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 2

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Johannes Stezenbach
Date: Friday, May 11, 2007 - 5:21 am

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:08:54AM +0530, jimmy bahuleyan wrote:

"stupid legacy" were Linus' words. http://lwn.net/Articles/233482/

How about this:

"The jiffies variable is a special case because there are too
many places in the kernel which would have to be changed and reviewed
if the volatile would be removed from jiffies. However, the
use of volatile qualifier for jiffies is just as wrong as
it is elsewhere. Don't use jiffies as an excuse to use volatile
in your code."


Johannes
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 2, Jonathan Corbet, (Thu May 10, 1:20 pm)
Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 2, jimmy bahuleyan, (Thu May 10, 1:38 pm)
Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 2, Philipp Matthias Hahn, (Fri May 11, 12:41 am)
Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 2, Bernd Eckenfels, (Fri May 11, 1:41 am)
Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 2, Johannes Stezenbach, (Fri May 11, 5:21 am)
Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 2, jimmy bahuleyan, (Fri May 11, 6:52 am)