On 12/12/17 18:26, no-re...@patchew.org wrote: > Hi, > > This series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for > more information: > > Message-id: 20171212172208.13588-1-marcandre.lur...@redhat.com > Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] dump-guest-memory.py: fix "You can't do that > without a process to debug" > Type: series > > === TEST SCRIPT BEGIN === > #!/bin/bash > > BASE=base > n=1 > total=$(git log --oneline $BASE.. | wc -l) > failed=0 > > git config --local diff.renamelimit 0 > git config --local diff.renames True > > commits="$(git log --format=%H --reverse $BASE..)" > for c in $commits; do > echo "Checking PATCH $n/$total: $(git log -n 1 --format=%s $c)..." > if ! git show $c --format=email | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --mailback -; > then > failed=1 > echo > fi > n=$((n+1)) > done > > exit $failed > === TEST SCRIPT END === > > Updating 3c8cf5a9c21ff8782164d1def7f44bd888713384 > From https://github.com/patchew-project/qemu > t [tag update] patchew/20171207203036.14993-1-ebl...@redhat.com > -> patchew/20171207203036.14993-1-ebl...@redhat.com > * [new tag] > patchew/20171212172208.13588-1-marcandre.lur...@redhat.com -> > patchew/20171212172208.13588-1-marcandre.lur...@redhat.com > Switched to a new branch 'test' > 7c0544b1a7 dump-guest-memory.py: fix "You can't do that without a process to > debug" > > === OUTPUT BEGIN === > Checking PATCH 1/1: dump-guest-memory.py: fix "You can't do that without a > process to debug"... > ERROR: Use of volatile is usually wrong: see > Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt > #46: FILE: hw/misc/vmcoreinfo.c:39: > + static VMCoreInfoState * volatile vmcoreinfo_state G_GNUC_UNUSED; > > total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 24 lines checked > > Your patch has style problems, please review. If any of these errors > are false positives report them to the maintainer, see > CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS. > > === OUTPUT END === > > Test command exited with code: 1 > > > --- > Email generated automatically by Patchew [http://patchew.org/]. > Please send your feedback to patchew-de...@freelists.org >
"volatile" is required in this case; otherwise GCC would be entirely justified to eliminate the variable.
