On 5/11/07, Jonathan Corbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's another version of the volatile document. Once again, I've tried to address all of the comments. There haven't really been any recent comments addressing the correctness of the document; people have been more concerned with how it's expressed. I'm glad to see files in Documentation/ held to a high standard of writing, but, unless somebody has a factual issue this time around I would like to declare Mission Accomplished and move on.
The document looks good, but whether:
+ - Pointers to data structures in coherent memory which might be modified + by I/O devices can, sometimes, legitimately be volatile. A ring buffer + used by a network adapter, where that adapter changes pointers to + indicate which descriptors have been processed, is an example of this + type of situation.
is a legitimate use case for volatile is still not clear to me (I agree with Alan's comment in a previous thread that this seems to be a case where a memory barrier would be applicable^Wbetter, actually). I could be wrong here, so would be nice if Peter explains why volatile is legitimate here. Otherwise, it's fine with me. Thanks, Satyam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
