[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CE17133.2050101@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:43:15 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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)
On 11/14/2010 11:02 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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.
>
However, I have to vehemently object to putting them in a wider scope
than is otherwise necessary. I agree that static variables should be
used sparsely if at all (there really are vary few uses of them that are
valid), but putting them in a larger scope screams "I'm used in more
than one function", and that is *not* a good thing.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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