Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265302AbUF1XQw (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:16:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265305AbUF1XQw (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:16:52 -0400 Received: from ip214-49.coastside.net ([207.213.214.33]:25290 "EHLO jlundell.local") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265302AbUF1XQu (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:16:50 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <1088266111.1943.15.camel@mulgrave> <1088268405.1942.25.camel@mulgrave> <1088270298.1942.40.camel@mulgrave> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:16:43 -0700 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jonathan Lundell Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix the cpumask rewrite Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 960 Lines: 20 At 11:01 AM -0700 6/26/04, Linus Torvalds wrote: >I'm saying that data structures ARE NOT VOLATILE. I personally believe >that the notion of a "volatile" data structure is complete and utter shit. Perhaps, but surely they exist. I'm thinking specifically of memory-mapped hardware registers and data structures that are shared with DMA devices. Most recent Ethernet controllers fall into the latter category, and in either case write-locking is not an option. If I can find some way to force my code to reload the data, then sure, call the code "volatile" if you like. But the data is simply volatile, in the sense that it can (and is expected to) change independent of my code paths. -- /Jonathan Lundell. - 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/