linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB Elan FTDI: check for workqueue creation

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070223081005.GB10055@cvg>
Date:	Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:10:05 +0300
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel-list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB Elan FTDI: check for workqueue creation

On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:57:38PM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
| On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:53:22 +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
| 
| > | > -static struct workqueue_struct *status_queue;
| > | > +static struct workqueue_struct *status_queue = NULL;
| 
| > | You better drop this part. Someone is bound to object.
| 
| > actually I don't understand why... Event on ftdi_elan_exit()
| > status_queue is setting up to NULL. And what is bound to object?
| > Could you write more detailed?
| 
| All these variables are static, they are already initialized to zero.
| 
| -- Pete
| 

Pete,

I may be wrong, but a lot of the kernel code have static pointers
initialized to NULL with explicit manner... More over I always thought
that _static_ is not mean _initialized to zero_. I think _static_ is
just the method to _hide_ variables in the file (as ANSI C describes).
Am I wrong?

		Cyrill

-
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/