Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267194AbUFZTPg (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:15:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267207AbUFZTPf (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:15:35 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:28297 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267194AbUFZTPU (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:15:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:13:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: James Bottomley cc: Vojtech Pavlik , Andrew Morton , Paul Jackson , PARISC list , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix the cpumask rewrite In-Reply-To: <1088276531.1750.113.camel@mulgrave> Message-ID: References: <1088266111.1943.15.camel@mulgrave> <1088268405.1942.25.camel@mulgrave> <1088270298.1942.40.camel@mulgrave> <20040626182820.GA3723@ucw.cz> <1088276531.1750.113.camel@mulgrave> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 896 Lines: 29 On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, James Bottomley wrote: > > Our test bit implementation would then become: > > static __inline__ int test_bit(int nr, const volatile void *address) > { > return __test_bit(nr, (const void *)address); > } > > That would keep our implementation happy. You just _want_ to be screwed over whenever your gcc bugs are fixed, don't you? Are you going to complain to the gcc people when they fix their bugs? Or are you going to spend months to debug problems that only happen for other people, because they happen to have fixed compilers? There's a real reason why there is a "volatile" there on other architectures. Linus - 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/