On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:44:21AM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote: > Fix checkpatch warnings in hv.c > > Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/staging/hv/hv.c | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c b/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c > index e733173..14e6315 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static u64 do_hypercall(u64 control, void *input, void *output) > u64 hv_status = 0; > u64 input_address = (input) ? virt_to_phys(input) : 0; > u64 output_address = (output) ? virt_to_phys(output) : 0; > - volatile void *hypercall_page = hv_context.hypercall_page; > + void *hypercall_page = hv_context.hypercall_page; Are you sure? This was just someone being foolish? No other reason someone tried to use volatile here? greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
