Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 May 2009 13:18:16 +0100 | From | Andy Whitcroft <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] SLQB: Coding style cleanups |
| |
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > 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.
Yeah we did talk about it once before. At that time I did some experiments and confirmed that there was no space to be saved. However the discussion never came to a conclusion. For myself I am happy to remove this check if it has outlived its usefulness.
-apw -- 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/
| |