RE: [PATCH 4/8] Staging: hv: vmbus: Fix checkpatch warnings

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@kroah.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:17 PM
To: KY Srinivasan
Cc: gregkh@suse.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
devel@linuxdriverproject.org; virtualization@lists.osdl.org; Haiyang Zhang
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] Staging: hv: vmbus: Fix checkpatch warnings

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:44:21AM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:

quoted

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)

quoted

 	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?

I cannot see any reason why this needs to be volatile.

Regards,

K. Y

greg k-h