From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759941AbXGBO7x (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:59:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756458AbXGBO7q (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:59:46 -0400 Received: from vena.lwn.net ([206.168.112.25]:60843 "EHLO vena.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752856AbXGBO7q (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:59:46 -0400 To: Heikki Orsila Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: improvement to volatile considered harmful (resubmit) From: corbet@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet) In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:26:22 +0300." <20070701122622.GC3400@zakalwe.fi> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:59:45 -0600 Message-ID: <15122.1183388385@lwn.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Heikki Orsila wrote: > I'm resubmitting this as I didn't get any replies, this time CCeing > proper people, sorry.. > > Kernel locking/synchronization primitives are better than volatile types > from code readability point of view also. I think that just dilutes the real point. It's not a choice between locking and volatile - the locking must be there regardless. It's a correctness issue; if the result happens to be more readable too that's a bonus. If somebody wants to put this sentence in I won't object, but I don't think it really improves the document either. Thanks, jon