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

Satyam Sharma wrote:
Coming back to the document, we do need to document / find
consensus on the "preferred" way to do similar business in the
kernel, and my opinion as far as that is concerned is to shun
volatile wherever possible (which includes the case originally
discussed above).

I too recommend that volatile-considered-harmful.txt is not watered down
by an ever growing "but if" list. If anybody knows what he does, he
still can program in a deviating way --- provided that he leaves a brief
comment in the code, telling why it is possible and beneficial to use
the volatile qualifier in this special case.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= -==--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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/