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

From: "lipeng (Y)" <lipeng321@huawei.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: Guangbin Huang <huangguangbin2@huawei.com>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
	<kuba@kernel.org>, <xie.he.0141@gmail.com>, <ms@dev.tdt.de>,
	<willemb@google.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 04/11] net: z85230: remove redundant initialization for statics
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 21:03:56 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bf51962d-b567-5d87-188a-6a0e4d79c670@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YMdLYzr4QjrQIe0o@lunn.ch>

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