Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 May 2009 11:17:50 +0200 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] SLQB: Coding style cleanups |
| |
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:37:32AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Nick, > > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote: > >> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ static inline void struct_slqb_page_wrong_size(void) > >> /* > >> * slqb_min_order: minimum allocation order for slabs > >> */ > >> -static int slqb_min_order = 0; > >> +static int slqb_min_order; > > > > I actually like explicit zero initializers. I think it has been > > a long time since this actually saved any memory with gcc. > > > > Yes yes, I know that anybody who can "read C" will read the > > implicit zero initializer anyway... however I just think it is > > a stupid thing for checkpatch to warn against. > > OK. I guess I can drop those hunks. But from coding style of point > view we don't really do explicit zero initializers in the core > kernel...
Well... it's not a big deal, but I just don't think it is a big enough deal to have checkpatch complain about it. Whatever you like. If you have already committed that version, then don't worry about changing it.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |