Randy Dunlap wrote:
quoted text
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> No, David means that "asm volatile (...)" is meaningful and OK to use.
> 
> I thought it was OK in readl(), writel(), etc... (and in asm),
> but that's it.  (and jiffies)
> 
>> In a driver?  Highly unlikey it is OK.  In a filesystem?  Even more 
>> unlikely it is OK to use.
>>
>> The set of circumstances where 'volatile' is acceptable is very limited.
>>
>> You will see it used properly in the definitions of writel(), for 
>> example.  But most drivers using 'volatile' are likely bugs.


Not sure how to interpret your top-posted response :)

It is normal in the definition of writel(), in arch code, but 
inappropriate in drivers when they _use_ writel().

If I may generalize, arch code generally knows what it's doing, when it 
uses volatile.  OTOH, driver authors that use volatile generally do 
/not/ know what they are doing.

	Jeff


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