Roland Dreier wrote:
> Still some suspicious uses of volatile here.
>
> For example:
>
>
>> +struct myri10ge_priv {
>>
> ...
>
>> + volatile u8 __iomem *sram;
>>
>
> as far as I can see this is always used with proper __iomem accessors,
> often with casts to strip the volatile anyway. So why is volatile needed?
>
> I would suggest an audit of all uses of volatile in the driver, since
> "volatile" in drivers really should be read "there's probably a bug
> here, and if not something very tricky is going on." If there are any
> valid uses of volatile then a comment should explain why, so that
> future reviewers don't have to try and puzzle out which of the
> two possible translations of volatile is correct.
>
You are right, we audited the code and it looks like we don't need any
volatile.
Thanks,
Brice
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
