On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:44:21AM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Fix checkpatch warnings in hv.c
Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>
---
drivers/staging/hv/hv.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c b/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c
index e733173..14e6315 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/hv/hv.c
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static u64 do_hypercall(u64 control, void *input, void *output)
u64 hv_status = 0;
u64 input_address = (input) ? virt_to_phys(input) : 0;
u64 output_address = (output) ? virt_to_phys(output) : 0;
- volatile void *hypercall_page = hv_context.hypercall_page;
+ void *hypercall_page = hv_context.hypercall_page;
Are you sure? This was just someone being foolish? No other reason
someone tried to use volatile here?
greg k-h