On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > On 10/21/2014 03:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 04:22:27PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote: >>>> Generating a volatile pointer is really not necessary here. This is the >>>> only >>>> location where a volatile pointer is being generated for use in asm. >>>> >>>> This commit removes the unnecessary volatile pointer being created. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.pr...@gmail.com> >> >> Seems sane enough to me. >> > > However, it seems like unnecessary churn. Does the volatile hurt in any > way?
Removing 4 lines of unnecessary code seems to be worthwhile to me. Also, we reduce the unnecessary use of 'volatile' data types which IMHO makes this a good little clean up. I am not sure if the use of volatile actually causes any loss of chances of optimization. I've tried to come up with cases where this happens and was unsuccessful. -- Pranith -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
