Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757786AbXELHOt (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 May 2007 03:14:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756501AbXELHOm (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 May 2007 03:14:42 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([192.83.249.54]:43121 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756444AbXELHOl (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 May 2007 03:14:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4645691C.5090408@zytor.com> Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 00:13:32 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Satyam Sharma CC: Jonathan Corbet , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Stezenbach , Jesper Juhl , Randy Dunlap , Heikki Orsila , jimmy bahuleyan , Stefan Richter Subject: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3 References: <12700.1178905000@lwn.net> <464551D5.2050709@zytor.com> <46455CD9.7010205@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1607 Lines: 35 Satyam Sharma wrote: >> >> Sorry, that's just utter crap. Linux isn't written in some mythical C >> which only exists in standard document, it is written in a particular >> subset of GNU C. "volatile" is well enough defined in that context, it >> is just frequently misused. > > Of course, volatile _is_ defined (well, _anything_ that is implemented > _is_ defined, after all) in the context of GNU C, and if you're saying > that the kernel (and all its subsystems) is and should _continue_ to > be (the purpose of this document) written within that context, then > that's your opinion and I would not disagree with you. If you do > prefer to continue using that dialect, then I wouldn't stop you either. > This isn't just an opinion, this is the language the Linux kernel is written in today, and has been for the duration of its 16-year existence. It contains *many* constructs that are not defined in, for example, C99, and it would in fact be impossible to write the Linux kernel using only C99-compliant constructs. > Personally, I'd prefer writing in a slightly more portable / larger > context (using well-defined and understood APIs), thank you, and > hope you'd allow me to do so myself. There is no such "slightly more portable/larger context/well-defined and understood" context in existence. If you think so, you're deluding yourself. -hpa - 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/