Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

Randy Dunlap
2007-05-09T03:14:14Z

On Tue, 8 May 2007 19:38:56 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes wrote:

> On Tue, 8 May 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> > "volatile" used on a gcc asm extension is different, granted.
> > It's not even a C-language "volatile" keyword AFAICT, so it doesn't
> > apply in this context.
> >
>
> Using 'volatile' for an asm construct certainly is a keyword; in fact, C99
> defines 'volatile' as a token which is reserved for use as a keyword.

touche'

> > Anyway, how is this slightly modified title?
> >
> > +***** "volatile" considered useless and evil: Just Say NO! *****
> > +
> > +Do not use the C-language "volatile" keyword on kernel data
> > +(extracted from lkml emails from Linus)
> >
>
> It's still ambiguous. A much more explicit title that nobody could argue
> with would be "do not use the 'volatile' keyword as a type qualifier for
> an object."

OK, I can accept that.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***