lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 4/8] Staging: hv: vmbus: Fix checkpatch warnings
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@kroah.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:17 PM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: gregkh@suse.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> devel@linuxdriverproject.org; virtualization@lists.osdl.org; Haiyang Zhang
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] Staging: hv: vmbus: Fix checkpatch warnings
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:44:21AM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > Fix checkpatch warnings in hv.c
> >
> > Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/hv/hv.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c b/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c
> > index e733173..14e6315 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c
> > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static u64 do_hypercall(u64 control, void *input, void
> *output)
> > u64 hv_status = 0;
> > u64 input_address = (input) ? virt_to_phys(input) : 0;
> > u64 output_address = (output) ? virt_to_phys(output) : 0;
> > - volatile void *hypercall_page = hv_context.hypercall_page;
> > + void *hypercall_page = hv_context.hypercall_page;
>
> Are you sure? This was just someone being foolish? No other reason
> someone tried to use volatile here?

I cannot see any reason why this needs to be volatile.

Regards,

K. Y
>
> greg k-h



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-08-24 03:13    [W:0.122 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site