linux-kernel - Re: drop overzealous ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL from checkpatch.pl

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:	Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:15:36 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	"John Kacur" <jkacur@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Andy Whitcroft" <apw@...dowen.org>, rdunlap@...otime.net,
	jschopp@...tin.ibm.com
Subject: Re: drop overzealous ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL from checkpatch.pl

On Wednesday 13 August 2008, John Kacur wrote:
> Could we drop this somewhat overzealous "ERROR: do not initialise
> statics to 0 or NULL" from checkpatch.pl?

I totally agree we should drop it.

> Reasoning:
> 1. This is not part of Documentation/CodingStyle

However, it is in http://kernel-janitor.sourceforge.net/TODO and should
be dropped from there as well.

> 3. It can be a good form of documentation.

I don't think so. Every C programmer should know that it is the
same. 

> 5. It doesn't even change the object size (thus kernel size) to do so.
> Demo with user space code.

I'm not sure what the last compiler version was on which it made the
difference, probably 2.95 or 3.0 or something else that is no longer
supported.
I do remember that at some point in time, we could save a few bytes by
doing it.

	Arnd <><
--
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/