linux-kernel - Re: [0/3] lenovo-sl-laptop : new driver for drivers/staging

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: <4ab4bbae0902150835h1158118wcb95be75d17ec37c@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:35:32 -0500
From:	Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@...il.com>
To:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Cc:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-laptop@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [0/3] lenovo-sl-laptop : new driver for drivers/staging

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<hmh@....eng.br> wrote:
> We will be happy to review the driver in linux-acpi.  Submitting it as
> a single patch against latest Linus is probably best.

I think I found the fan speed interface; I will resubmit to linux-acpi
after I finish it.

> Oh, and it
> should be checkpatch-clean if it isn't already.

Checkpatch complains about static variables initialized to 0. Since
it's my first time writing kernel code, I have to ask what are
probably obvious questions.
1. Why is initializing a static variable to 0 bad? or worse than
initializing that variable to 1, or -1?
2. If I want to have a module parameter whose default value is 0, what
should I do to stop checkpatch from complaining?

-Alexandre
--
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/