On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Srishti Sharma <srishtishar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <srishtishar@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> 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 .
>
AFAICT, it's not used. Your patch should just remove it instead :)
Sean
> Regards,
> Srishti
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/CAB3L5oxcyhgyy8EuGuPo9QtJQd-W7JTgQQE1PfopZFmSx58P9g%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
