linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fastboot: Introduce an asynchronous function call mechanism

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: <20081015175252.GA10600@x200.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:52:52 +0400
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fastboot: Introduce an asynchronous function call
	mechanism

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 09:59:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:52:46 -0400 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:41:17 -0700
> > Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > +static int async_active = 0;
> > > 
> > > ?
> > ok will add comment
> 
> I was actually "?"ing at the "= 0".  I thought that would be obvious
> but it's whizzed past two people so far :(

Is there evidence that some gccs will not add such variable to .bss?

Because "= 0;" is more readable.
--
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/