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

[lipeng (Y)]

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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >          Should not initialise statics to 0.
> >
> >          Signed-off-by: Peng Li <lipeng321@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >          Signed-off-by: Guangbin Huang <huangguangbin2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >          ---
> >           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