On 5/12/07, H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>> + - Pointers to data structures in coherent memory which might be
>> modified
>> + by I/O devices can, sometimes, legitimately be volatile. A ring
>> buffer
>> + used by a network adapter, where that adapter changes pointers to
>> + indicate which descriptors have been processed, is an example of
>> this
>> + type of situation.
>
> is a legitimate use case for volatile is still not clear to me (I
> agree with Alan's
> comment in a previous thread that this seems to be a case where a memory
> barrier would be applicable^Wbetter, actually). I could be wrong here, so
> would be nice if Peter explains why volatile is legitimate here.
>
> Otherwise, it's fine with me.
>
I don't see why Alan's way is necessarily better;
Because volatile is ill-defined? Or actually, *undefined* (well,
implementation-defined is as good as that)? It's *so* _vague_,
one doesn't _feel_ like using it at all!
We already have a complete API containing optimization barriers,
load/store/full memory barriers. With well-defined and
well-understood semantics. Just ... _why_ use volatile?
it should work but is
It will _always_ work. In fact you can't really say the same for
volatile. We already assume the compiler _actually_ took some
pains to stuff meaning into C's (lack of) definition of volatile and
implement it -- but in what sense, nobody knows (the C standard
doesn't, so what are we).
more heavy-handed as it's disabling *all* optimization such as loop
invariants across the barrier.
This is a legitimate criticism, I agree.
Thanks,
Satyam
-
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/
