[PATCH] Documentation: improvement to volatile considered harmful

[Heikki Orsila]

Kernel locking/synchronization primitives are better than volatile types 
from code readability point of view also.

This patch is against 2.6.22-rc6.

Signed-off-by: Heikki Orsila <heikki.orsila@xxxxxx>

diff --git a/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt b/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
index 10c2e41..ab9e62e 100644
--- a/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
+++ b/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
@@ -17,8 +17,9 @@ all optimization-related problems in a more efficient way.
 
 Like volatile, the kernel primitives which make concurrent access to data
 safe (spinlocks, mutexes, memory barriers, etc.) are designed to prevent
-unwanted optimization.  If they are being used properly, there will be no
-need to use volatile as well.  If volatile is still necessary, there is
+unwanted optimization. If they are being used properly, there will be no
+need to use volatile as well. Also, they make code more readable as they
+represent their intent explicitly. If volatile is still necessary, there is
 almost certainly a bug in the code somewhere.  In properly-written kernel
 code, volatile can only serve to slow things down.
 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/