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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808132216460.7713@axis700.grange>
Date:	Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:19:08 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
To:	John Kacur <jkacur@...il.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
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 Wed, 13 Aug 2008, John Kacur wrote:

> Could we drop this somewhat overzealous "ERROR: do not initialise
> statics to 0 or NULL" from checkpatch.pl?
> 
> Reasoning:
> 1. This is not part of Documentation/CodingStyle
> 2. K&R 2nd.ed do it (pg 83, static int bufp = 0;) The purpose is to
> remove access to the bufp from external routines, and to avoid name
> conflict)

No, "static" "removes access to the bufp from external routines, and 
avoids name conflict", not the initialization to 0.

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
--
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/