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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:28:19 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     "lipeng (Y)" <lipeng321@...wei.com>
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

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