From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267214AbUFZWSQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:18:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267213AbUFZWSQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:18:16 -0400 Received: from pimout3-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.102]:8099 "EHLO pimout3-ext.prodigy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267216AbUFZWSM (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:18:12 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:18:02 -0700 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Linus Torvalds Cc: James Bottomley , Andrew Morton , Paul Jackson , PARISC list , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix the cpumask rewrite Message-ID: <20040626221802.GA12296@taniwha.stupidest.org> References: <1088266111.1943.15.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 09:32:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Now, I personally am not a big believer in the "volatile" keyword > itself, since I believe that anybody who expects the compiler to > generate different code for volatiles and non-volatiles is pretty > much waiting for a bug to happen I recently had to change jiffies_64 (include/linux/jiffies.h) to be volatile as gcc produced code that didn't work as a result of it. Clearly in some cases gcc does know about volatile and does produce 'the right thing' --- I don't really see why people claim volatile is a bad thing, there are clearly places where we need this and gcc seems to do the right thing. --cw