Heikki Orsila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - 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/
