linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: OLPC: speed up device tree creation during boot (v2)

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: <20101115070254.GA25243@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:02:54 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net>,
	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>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: OLPC: speed up device tree creation during boot
 (v2)

* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> What?  What is wrong with static variables in functions?  It really doesn't seem 
> to be a good idea to make them file-scope if they don't need to be.

They are very easy to overlook and mix up with regular stack variables and i've seen 
(and introduced myself) a number of bugs due to them.

They also often are used in buggy ways (with SMP not taken into consideration), so 
overlooking them during review compounds their negative effects. Putting them in 
front of the function isnt a big deal in exchange.

There are people who never overlook them (like yourself), but my brain is wired up 
differently.

Thanks,

	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/