linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] powerpc/pmac/smp: Fix old-style declaration

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191226222202.Horde.0xaecj7x1FoNwm4fHxlH0Q2@messagerie.si.c-s.fr>
Date:   Thu, 26 Dec 2019 22:22:02 +0100
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] powerpc/pmac/smp: Fix old-style declaration

YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com> a écrit :

> There expect the 'static' keyword to come first in a declaration
>
> arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c:664:1: warning: static is not  
> at beginning of declaration [-Wold-style-declaration]
> arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c:665:1: warning: static is not  
> at beginning of declaration [-Wold-style-declaration]
>
> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c  
> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c
> index f95fbde..7233b85 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/smp.c
> @@ -661,8 +661,8 @@ static void smp_core99_gpio_tb_freeze(int freeze)
>  #endif /* !CONFIG_PPC64 */
>
>  /* L2 and L3 cache settings to pass from CPU0 to CPU1 on G4 cpus */
> -volatile static long int core99_l2_cache;
> -volatile static long int core99_l3_cache;
> +static volatile long int core99_l2_cache;
> +static volatile long int core99_l3_cache;

Is it correct to declare it as volatile ?

See  
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/volatile-considered-harmful.html

Christophe