Message-ID: <4640EB9D.90409@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 14:29:01 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
References: <516386418.20070501080839@gmail.com> <20070430235642.e576e917.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070508121404.17bd97a6.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <alpine.DEB.0.99.0705081217180.12908@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <4640E98B.4030107@goop.org>
In-Reply-To: <4640E98B.4030107@goop.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1697
Lines: 37

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> David Rientjes wrote:
>> Since 'volatile' has two different semantics depending on the context in 
>> which it is used, this warning should be appended to include the fact that 
>> it is legitimate to use for inline assembly.
>>   
> 
> 
> It's probably worth noting that "asm volatile (...)" doesn't mean what
> many people think it means: specifically, it *does not* prevent the asm
> from being reordered with respect to the surrounding code.  It may not
> even prevent it from being reordered with respect to other asm
> volatiles.  *All* it means is that the asm code will be emitted even if
> the compiler doesn't think its results will be used.  Note that an
> "asm()" with no outputs is implicitly "asm volatile()" - on the grounds
> that it would be otherwise useless as far as gcc can tell.
> 
> If you need to guarantee ordering of asm statements, you must do it
> explicitly, with either a "memory" clobber, or some finer-grain
> serialization variable (like the _proxy_pda stuff).  It would be useful
> if you could tell gcc "I'm passing this variable to the asm for
> serialization purposes, but there's no need to generate any explicit
> references to it", but as far as I know there's no support for that.
> 
>     J

The doc. should just be talking about "volatile" in C mostly.
Any asm volatile comments are "extra".

-- 
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
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/