From: Srishti Sharma Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] Staging: ccree: Don't use volatile for monitor_lock Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:04:38 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1505145571-11248-1-git-send-email-srishtishar@gmail.com> <20170911160449.GA11886@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 To: Julia Lawall Return-path: Received: from mail-qt0-f196.google.com ([209.85.216.196]:35865 "EHLO mail-qt0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751422AbdIKQej (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:34:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Srishti Sharma wrote: > 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. It compiles, so I have removed the variable and sent another patch Thanks, Srishti > > Yes, I'll do that. > > Regards, > Srishti >> >> julia