From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19F805C92 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:03:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 63094C433D6; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:03:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1662746590; bh=bQwRnD4uoR7miTObIoza35eZR6TgzD9lzCalStKcSl8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fsKTJb6OE8cnezYVusd+lWkGgVoJ8z+sAYkfLYTwON64B+I5lX+MDDri+LTLMPPER BahO2HIzQMPo8nYnhkAe8Kuta6NH8YIQy8rI8DUa6zoUr5dpwTCquZTIYfEJwqhciP nGHZ2f/+Nb9+a1vfmTR3ktIWMtdf+QZGlCu1AgcU= Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 20:03:08 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Nam Cao Cc: forest@alittletooquiet.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] staging: vt6655: remove unnecessary volatile qualifier Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 02:17:55PM +0200, Nam Cao wrote: > Remove volatile qualifier for the member rd0 of struct vnt_rx_desc, > because there is no reason it must be volatile. > > Signed-off-by: Nam Cao > --- > drivers/staging/vt6655/desc.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/desc.h b/drivers/staging/vt6655/desc.h > index 17a40c53b8ff..3f0f287b1693 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/desc.h > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/desc.h > @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ struct vnt_rdes1 { > > /* Rx descriptor*/ > struct vnt_rx_desc { > - volatile struct vnt_rdes0 rd0; > + struct vnt_rdes0 rd0; You can not just remove this without describing _WHY_ it is ok to do so. Have you properly determined why it is, or is not, ok to use volatile here? And if so, why are you leaving: > volatile struct vnt_rdes1 rd1; > volatile __le32 buff_addr; > volatile __le32 next_desc; Those? Please read up on why volatile almost never makes any sense in the kernel (note, sometimes it does), and please write a better changelog text for when you submit the next version of this patch series. thanks, greg k-h