Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:53:24 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     christian.koenig@amd.com
Cc:     Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com>,
        Deepak R Varma <mh12gx2825@gmail.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Maling list - DRI developers 
        <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Melissa Wen <melissa.srw@gmail.com>,
        amd-gfx list <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: do not initialise global variables to 0 or
 NULL
Message-ID: <20201103065324.GD75930@kroah.com>
References: <20201102184147.GA42288@localhost>
 <CADnq5_OnA3T_p4pTEOpoqQ=NZyso2VFoDiOHu=+h7dKOeKHq-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <c916ae88-5933-ab06-ad32-d87f00cac21f@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <c916ae88-5933-ab06-ad32-d87f00cac21f@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 09:06:21PM +0100, Christian K?nig wrote:
> Am 02.11.20 um 20:43 schrieb Alex Deucher:
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 1:42 PM Deepak R Varma <mh12gx2825@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Initializing global variable to 0 or NULL is not necessary and should
> > > be avoided. Issue reported by checkpatch script as:
> > > ERROR: do not initialise globals to 0 (or NULL).
> > I agree that this is technically correct, but a lot of people don't
> > seem to know that so we get a lot of comments about this code for the
> > variables that are not explicitly set.  Seems less confusing to
> > initialize them even if it not necessary.  I don't have a particularly
> > strong opinion on it however.
> 
> Agree with Alex.
> 
> Especially for the module parameters we should have a explicit init value
> for documentation purposes, even when it is 0.

Why is this one tiny driver somehow special compared to the entire rest
of the kernel?  (hint, it isn't...)

Please follow the normal coding style rules, there's no reason to ignore
them unless you like to constantly reject patches like this that get
sent to you.

thnaks,

greg k-h