On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Srishti Sharma 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 .
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.
julia
