| 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: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:40:15 +0000 From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com> To: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [BUG ?] checkpatch.pl rejects as error something I think it ought to be allow On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:28:02PM -0800, Corey Ashford wrote: > Hi, > > I have a piece of code where I have two constants defined as follows: > > static const unsigned long polling_interval_sec = 1; > static const unsigned long polling_interval_ns = 0; > > Now, it's clear to me that I want these two values to have the > keywords const and static. I could use a #define here, but const > static seemed cleaner to me. > > When I run checkpatch.pl across this code, I get this error: > > ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL. > > I think the problem here is that another case is needed for "static > const" that does allow 0. > > What do you think? > > Thanks for your consideration, The warning is intended to tell you that the = 0 is unnecessary. Any static is 0 by default I believe. At some point the addition of the 0 would move the value from the bss to the data segment bloating the code. This may no longer be true. -apw -- 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