Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751971AbdIKQPN (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:15:13 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f194.google.com ([209.85.220.194]:37067 "EHLO mail-qk0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751509AbdIKQPL (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:15:11 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCUvAwoHSeR0FXUA29DqRslocRcG9L8HMm7V8hxxyoEoI5G5qIOEdEI8w/imcQDpyuKWKcohICHfWofVX98/bA= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1505145571-11248-1-git-send-email-srishtishar@gmail.com> <20170911160449.GA11886@kroah.com> From: Srishti Sharma Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:45:10 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] Staging: ccree: Don't use volatile for monitor_lock To: Julia Lawall Cc: Greg KH , Gilad Ben-Yossef , Linux Crypto Mailing List , driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Linux kernel mailing list , outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1680 Lines: 44 On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Srishti Sharma wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 09:29:31PM +0530, Srishti Sharma wrote: >> >> The use of volatile for the variable monitor_lock is unnecessary. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Srishti Sharma >> >> --- >> >> drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_request_mgr.c | 2 +- >> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_request_mgr.c b/drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_request_mgr.c >> >> index e5c2f92..7d77941 100644 >> >> --- a/drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_request_mgr.c >> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_request_mgr.c >> >> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ struct ssi_request_mgr_handle { >> >> dma_addr_t dummy_comp_buff_dma; >> >> struct cc_hw_desc monitor_desc; >> >> >> >> - volatile unsigned long monitor_lock; >> >> + unsigned long monitor_lock; >> > >> > While volatile is not right, odds are, this is still totally wrong as >> > well. How about using a "real" lock instead? >> >> I tried to find where is this variable being used in the code, but I >> didn't find any usage of it . It might be an important attribute of >> this structure definition but, I don't see it's value being set to >> anything or being used somewhere . > > Try removing it and see if the code still compiles. There is always a > danger that a use of something could be constructed using ## in a macro, > although given the uses of ## for this driver, it doesn't seem likely > here. Yes, I'll do that. Regards, Srishti > > julia