On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Srishti Sharma <srishtishar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
It compiles, so I have removed the variable and sent another patch
Thanks,
Srishti
>
> Yes, I'll do that.
>
> Regards,
> Srishti
>>
>> julia
