linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SLQB: Coding style cleanups

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 5 May 2009 11:37:32 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLQB: Coding style cleanups

Hi Nick,

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.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...

                                       Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/