From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756661AbZEEMS1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 08:18:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752359AbZEEMSS (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 08:18:18 -0400 Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:40702 "EHLO adelie.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752059AbZEEMSR (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 08:18:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:18:16 +0100 From: Andy Whitcroft To: Nick Piggin Cc: Pekka Enberg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLQB: Coding style cleanups Message-ID: <20090505121816.GB23775@shadowen.org> References: <20090505082545.GE30220@wotan.suse.de> <84144f020905050137k692fb9d6l3f25a03b12b65333@mail.gmail.com> <20090505091750.GA14181@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20090505091750.GA14181@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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