[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101114095013.GB24206@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:50:13 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net>
Cc: Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: OLPC: speed up device tree creation during boot
(v2)
* Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:48:30 -0600
> Milton Miller <miltonm@....com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 around 21:45:46 -0800, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c
> > > b/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c index b8c8ff9..0ab824d 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c
> > > @@ -126,14 +126,31 @@ static unsigned int prom_early_allocated
> > > __initdata;
> > > void * __init prom_early_alloc(unsigned long size)
> > > {
> > > + static u8 *mem = NULL;
> > > + static size_t free_mem = 0;
> >
> > Static variables are implicitly 0 and NULL
>
> That's true for global static variables; is it also true for static
> variables that are local to a function?
It is the same allocation and initialization wise - just not visible to functions
outside this one.
It's being frowned upon btw, because it's easy to overlook (and for other reasons) -
please dont use statics inside functions - please put them in front of the function
or further up into file scope.
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists