Am 15.10.2017 um 17:32 schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > On 14/10/2017 18:53, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ static void *do_touch_pages(void *arg) >>> * don't need to write at all so we don't cause >>> * wear on the storage backing the region... >>> */ >>> - *(volatile char *)addr = *addr; >>> + *addr = *addr; >> I personally prefer the other form which is mostly self-explicit when >> reviewing this code. >> >> Declaring addr non volatile and using volatile cast here: >> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> >> > > I agree with Philippe; in general, volatile is more of a property of > the access rather than the variable. > > Paolo
Thanks for the feedback. I see your arguments. Maybe that part can be removed from my patch when it is applied, or should I send a v3 (cc'ing qemu-trivial)? Stefan
