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: <87k15ua6ff.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:38:44 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        paulus@...ba.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] powerpc/pmac/smp: Fix old-style declaration

Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> writes:
> 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 ?

I don't see any reason why it needs to be volatile, so I think we can
just remove that?

cheers