Messages in this thread | | | From | Paul Mackerras <> | Date | Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:41:57 +1100 (EST) | Subject | Re: bitmaps/bitops |
| |
Pete Zaitcev writes:
> > but the prototype for test_and_set_bit() depends on $(ARCH), and it's > > not consistent, with the second arg (bitmap address) being one of: > > volatile void * > > void * > > volatile unsigned long * > > It should be unsigned long pointer. I have no idea why > volatile is still alive. Perhaps Linus can remember why he > left it in on is386. Other arch maintainers midnlessly ape him > in this area. I think I even kept his e-mail where he explains > why volatile has to go.
The volatile is there (at least in ppc) because without it you get compile warnings. I don't see why the bitops particularly should be the anti-volatile police. I agree that using volatile is usually a bad idea (unless you are accessing a memory-mapped I/O device).
Paul. - 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/
| |