netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 04/11] net: z85230: remove redundant initialization for statics

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bf51962d-b567-5d87-188a-6a0e4d79c670@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 21:03:56 +0800
From:   "lipeng (Y)" <lipeng321@...wei.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     Guangbin Huang <huangguangbin2@...wei.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <kuba@...nel.org>, <xie.he.0141@...il.com>, <ms@....tdt.de>,
        <willemb@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 04/11] net: z85230: remove redundant
 initialization for statics


在 2021/6/14 20:28, Andrew Lunn 写道:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 06:16:12PM +0800, lipeng (Y) wrote:
>> 在 2021/6/14 0:22, Andrew Lunn 写道:
>>
>>      On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 03:38:16PM +0800, Guangbin Huang wrote:
>>
>>          From: Peng Li <lipeng321@...wei.com>
>>
>>          Should not initialise statics to 0.
>>
>>          Signed-off-by: Peng Li <lipeng321@...wei.com>
>>          Signed-off-by: Guangbin Huang <huangguangbin2@...wei.com>
>>          ---
>>           drivers/net/wan/z85230.c | 2 +-
>>           1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>>          diff --git a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
>>          index 94ed9a2..f815bb5 100644
>>          --- a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
>>          +++ b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
>>          @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ irqreturn_t z8530_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>           {
>>                  struct z8530_dev *dev=dev_id;
>>                  u8 intr;
>>          -       static volatile int locker=0;
>>          +       static int locker;
>>
>>      Is the volatile unneeded? Please document that in the commit message.
>>
>>         Andrew
>>      .
>>
>> Hi,  Andrew:
>>
>> When i create this patch, it will WARNING: Use of volatile is usually wrong:
>> see Documentation/process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst
>>
>> According to the file in kernel:    Documentation/process/volatile-considered-
>> harmful.rst
>>
>> the "volatile" type class should not be used.
>>
>> So i remove  "volatile" in this patch.
> Please be very careful to explain exactly why it is wrong, in this
> specific case.  You could also consider adding another patch which
> replaces the volatile with what is recommended.
>
>         Andrew
> .
Hi,  Andrew:

I will remove patch  04/11 from this clean-up patchset.
Will send another patch with detail reason for this line if needed.
Thanks for your comments.

         Peng Li