Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756691Ab0KSUYS (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:24:18 -0500 Received: from LUNGE.MIT.EDU ([18.54.1.69]:44448 "EHLO lunge.queued.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754797Ab0KSUYR (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:24:17 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:24:12 -0800 From: Andres Salomon To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: michael@ellerman.id.au, Ingo Molnar , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Milton Miller , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: OLPC: speed up device tree creation during boot (v2) Message-ID: <20101119122412.630da426@queued.net> In-Reply-To: <4CE5670B.1060300@zytor.com> References: <20101111214546.4e573cad@queued.net> <20101112002704.50c629e2@queued.net> <20101114095013.GB24206@elte.hu> <4CE0B54E.6000101@zytor.com> <20101115070254.GA25243@elte.hu> <4CE17133.2050101@zytor.com> <20101118083420.GC26398@elte.hu> <1290078135.22575.4.camel@concordia> <4CE54064.6010702@zytor.com> <20101118094153.4515cbc2@queued.net> <4CE5670B.1060300@zytor.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1721 Lines: 49 On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:48:59 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > On 11/18/2010 09:41 AM, Andres Salomon wrote: > >> > >> No, sorry, this sounds like a personal preference that is well out > >> of line with the vast majority of C programmers I've ever come > >> across, not just in the Linux kernel world but outside of it. > > > > > > This is actually one of the reasons I specifically like initialized > > static variables (inside of functions). Take the following code: > > > > int foo(void) > > { > > static char *frob = NULL; > > int p; > > > > if (frob) { > > ... > > } > > > > > > Upon seeing that and thinking "whoa, how could frob be > > initialized and then checked?", I realize that it's either a bug or > > I look back at the initialization and realize that frob is static. > > It's less obvious (to me) with non-explicit initialization. > > I have to agree with this one. In general I dislike relying on an > implicit (even well-defined) initialized value; unfortunately we > ripped out explicit initializations across the Linux kernel, not due > to readability but due to the fact that long-since-obsolete versions > of gcc would put explicitly-initialized variables in data rather than > bss even if the initial value is zero. > > -hpa > > Note that I sent another update for this patch the other day (Tuesday). It uses implicit initialization. Some Acks would be awesome if folks are happy w/ the way I've done things.. ;) -- 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/