| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:17:50 +0200 From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...onical.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLQB: Coding style cleanups 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 <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... 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. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists