> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:17 PM > To: KY Srinivasan > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Haiyang Zhang > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] Staging: hv: vmbus: Fix checkpatch warnings > > 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? I cannot see any reason why this needs to be volatile. Regards, K. Y > > greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
