Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        paulus@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] powerpc/pmac/smp: Fix old-style declaration
In-Reply-To: <20191226222202.Horde.0xaecj7x1FoNwm4fHxlH0Q2@messagerie.si.c-s.fr>
References: <20191226222202.Horde.0xaecj7x1FoNwm4fHxlH0Q2@messagerie.si.c-s.fr>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:38:44 +1000
Message-ID: <87k15ua6ff.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
> YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com> a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
>
>> There expect the 'static' keyword to come first in a declaration
>>
>> arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c:664:1: warning: static is not=20=20
>> at beginning of declaration [-Wold-style-declaration]
>> arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c:665:1: warning: static is not=20=20
>> at beginning of declaration [-Wold-style-declaration]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c=20=20
>> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c
>> index f95fbde..7233b85 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c
>> @@ -661,8 +661,8 @@ static void smp_core99_gpio_tb_freeze(int freeze)
>>  #endif /* !CONFIG_PPC64 */
>>
>>  /* L2 and L3 cache settings to pass from CPU0 to CPU1 on G4 cpus */
>> -volatile static long int core99_l2_cache;
>> -volatile static long int core99_l3_cache;
>> +static volatile long int core99_l2_cache;
>> +static volatile long int core99_l3_cache;
>
> Is it correct to declare it as volatile ?

I don't see any reason why it needs to be volatile, so I think we can
just remove that?

cheers