From: Peng Li <[email protected]>
Should not initialise statics to 0.
Signed-off-by: Peng Li <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Guangbin Huang <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wan/z85230.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
index 94ed9a2..f815bb5 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
@@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ irqreturn_t z8530_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
{
struct z8530_dev *dev=dev_id;
u8 intr;
- static volatile int locker=0;
+ static int locker;
int work=0;
struct z8530_irqhandler *irqs;
--
2.8.1
On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 03:38:16PM +0800, Guangbin Huang wrote:
> From: Peng Li <[email protected]>
>
> Should not initialise statics to 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Li <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Guangbin Huang <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/wan/z85230.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
> index 94ed9a2..f815bb5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
> @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ irqreturn_t z8530_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
> {
> struct z8530_dev *dev=dev_id;
> u8 intr;
> - static volatile int locker=0;
> + static int locker;
Is the volatile unneeded? Please document that in the commit message.
Andrew
在 2021/6/14 0:22, Andrew Lunn 写道:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 03:38:16PM +0800, Guangbin Huang wrote:
>> From: Peng Li <[email protected]>
>>
>> Should not initialise statics to 0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peng Li <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Guangbin Huang <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/wan/z85230.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
>> index 94ed9a2..f815bb5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
>> @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ irqreturn_t z8530_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> {
>> struct z8530_dev *dev=dev_id;
>> u8 intr;
>> - static volatile int locker=0;
>> + static int locker;
> Is the volatile unneeded? Please document that in the commit message.
>
> Andrew
> .
Hi, Andrew:
When i create this patch, it will WARNING: Use of volatile is usually
wrong: see Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
According to the file in kernel:
Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
the "volatile" type class should not be used.
So i remove "volatile" in this patch.
I will add the reason in commit log Next version.
Thanks.
Peng Li
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 06:16:12PM +0800, lipeng (Y) wrote:
>
> 在 2021/6/14 0:22, Andrew Lunn 写道:
>
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 03:38:16PM +0800, Guangbin Huang wrote:
>
> From: Peng Li <[email protected]>
>
> Should not initialise statics to 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Li <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Guangbin Huang <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/wan/z85230.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
> index 94ed9a2..f815bb5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
> @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ irqreturn_t z8530_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
> {
> struct z8530_dev *dev=dev_id;
> u8 intr;
> - static volatile int locker=0;
> + static int locker;
>
> Is the volatile unneeded? Please document that in the commit message.
>
> Andrew
> .
>
> Hi, Andrew:
>
> When i create this patch, it will WARNING: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
> see Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
>
> According to the file in kernel: Documentation/process/volatile-considered-
> harmful.rst
>
> the "volatile" type class should not be used.
>
> So i remove "volatile" in this patch.
Please be very careful to explain exactly why it is wrong, in this
specific case. You could also consider adding another patch which
replaces the volatile with what is recommended.
Andrew
在 2021/6/14 20:28, Andrew Lunn 写道:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 06:16:12PM +0800, lipeng (Y) wrote:
>> 在 2021/6/14 0:22, Andrew Lunn 写道:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 03:38:16PM +0800, Guangbin Huang wrote:
>>
>> From: Peng Li <[email protected]>
>>
>> Should not initialise statics to 0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peng Li <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Guangbin Huang <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/wan/z85230.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
>> index 94ed9a2..f815bb5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
>> @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ irqreturn_t z8530_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> {
>> struct z8530_dev *dev=dev_id;
>> u8 intr;
>> - static volatile int locker=0;
>> + static int locker;
>>
>> Is the volatile unneeded? Please document that in the commit message.
>>
>> Andrew
>> .
>>
>> Hi, Andrew:
>>
>> When i create this patch, it will WARNING: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
>> see Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
>>
>> According to the file in kernel: Documentation/process/volatile-considered-
>> harmful.rst
>>
>> the "volatile" type class should not be used.
>>
>> So i remove "volatile" in this patch.
> Please be very careful to explain exactly why it is wrong, in this
> specific case. You could also consider adding another patch which
> replaces the volatile with what is recommended.
>
> Andrew
> .
Hi, Andrew:
I will remove patch 04/11 from this clean-up patchset.
Will send another patch with detail reason for this line if needed.
Thanks for your comments.
Peng Li