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 *** - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
