Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:55:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:55:03 -0400 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:47119 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:54:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:53:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Chris Friesen cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Jeff Dike , user-mode-linux-user , linux-kernel , Jan Hubicka Subject: Re: user-mode port 0.44-2.4.7 In-Reply-To: <3B5C8C96.FE53F5BA@nortelnetworks.com> Message-ID: 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 Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Chris Friesen wrote: > > If I understand correctly, xtime is updated asynchronously. If it isn't, then > ignore this message totally. However, if it is, then *not* specifying it as > volatile could easily cause problems in technically correct but poorly written > code. Yes. Adding "volatile" often helps poorly written code. In fact, the one AND ONLY reason to add volatile to data structures is in fact poorly written code. Now, think about that for a minute, and maybe you'll understand why I don't want more volatiles in the kernel. Linus PS. This has come up before. The old pre-Alan networking code had "volatile" on just about every single network data structure. Every damn single one of them was a bug. Without exception. - 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/