Re: [PATCH] SLQB: Coding style cleanups

[Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>]

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.