Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754378AbYHMMQI (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:16:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752208AbYHMMP4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:15:56 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:61334 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751634AbYHMMPz (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:15:55 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: "John Kacur" Subject: Re: drop overzealous ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL from checkpatch.pl Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:15:36 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: LKML , "Andy Whitcroft" , rdunlap@xenotime.net, jschopp@austin.ibm.com References: <520f0cf10808130339r5dd22e12w3477d6bddd545db1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <520f0cf10808130339r5dd22e12w3477d6bddd545db1@mail.gmail.com> X-Face: I@=L^?./?$U,EK.)V[4*>`zSqm0>65YtkOe>TFD'!aw?7OVv#~5xd\s,[~w]-J!)|%=]>=?utf-8?q?+=0A=09=7EohchhkRGW=3F=7C6=5FqTmkd=5Ft=3FLZC=23Q-=60=2E=60Y=2Ea=5E?= =?utf-8?q?3zb?=) =?utf-8?q?+U-JVN=5DWT=25cw=23=5BYo0=267C=26bL12wWGlZi=0A=09=7EJ=3B=5Cwg?= =?utf-8?q?=3B3zRnz?=,J"CT_)=\H'1/{?SR7GDu?WIopm.HaBG=QYj"NZD_[zrM\Gip^U MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808131415.36851.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18g+qB2x1k5SadAa3Xaxp+TdVelkpjAwWVN11y y7vNDIbDr4lZs6b+nTqEOdkJEV9NmbSZUTSyF5wTTzn04NGH4m mLmbuNjUSOlkdrCc7MDYg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1072 Lines: 32 On Wednesday 13 August 2008, John Kacur wrote: > Could we drop this somewhat overzealous "ERROR: do not initialise > statics to 0 or NULL" from checkpatch.pl? I totally agree we should drop it. > Reasoning: > 1. This is not part of Documentation/CodingStyle However, it is in http://kernel-janitor.sourceforge.net/TODO and should be dropped from there as well. > 3. It can be a good form of documentation. I don't think so. Every C programmer should know that it is the same. > 5. It doesn't even change the object size (thus kernel size) to do so. > Demo with user space code. I'm not sure what the last compiler version was on which it made the difference, probably 2.95 or 3.0 or something else that is no longer supported. I do remember that at some point in time, we could save a few bytes by doing it. Arnd <>< -- 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/