On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Yes, I'll do that.
Regards,
Srishti
>
> julia
