Re: [PATCH] SLQB: Coding style cleanups

[Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>]

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