Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] Staging: ccree: Don't use volatile for monitor_lock
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Srishti Sharma wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Greg KH 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
>>> ---
>>> 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 .
>
AFAICT, it's not used. Your patch should just remove it instead :)
Sean
> Regards,
> Srishti
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "outreachy-kernel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to outreachy-ker...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/CAB3L5oxcyhgyy8EuGuPo9QtJQd-W7JTgQQE1PfopZFmSx58P9g%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] Staging: ccree: Don't use volatile for monitor_lock
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Srishti Sharma wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Greg KH 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
> >> ---
> >> 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.
julia
Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] Staging: ccree: Don't use volatile for monitor_lock
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Srishti Sharma wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Greg KH 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
>> >> ---
>> >> 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.
Yes, I'll do that.
Regards,
Srishti
>
> julia
Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] Staging: ccree: Don't use volatile for monitor_lock
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Srishti Sharma wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Srishti Sharma wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Greg KH 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
>>> >> ---
>>> >> 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
