Re: bitmaps/bitops

Paul Mackerras (paulus@samba.org)
Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:41:57 +1100 (EST)


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/