> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:08:54AM +0530, jimmy bahuleyan wrote:
>> Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> [snip..]
>>> +
>>> + - The jiffies variable is special in that it can have a different value
>>> + every time it is referenced, but it can be read without any special
>>> + locking. So jiffies can be volatile, but the addition of other
>>> + variables of this type is strongly frowned upon. Jiffies is considered
>>> + to be a "stupid legacy" issue in this regard.
>> Why is it that you consider jiffies to be a "stupid legacy"? Isn't it
>> natural to have a externally modified variable which is only /read/ to
>> be volatile? (or is jiffies supposed to be replaced with something
>> smarter/better :)
>
> "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
>
