On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Andries Brouwer wrote:I agree, but a comment would have been nice. Now there are two identical structures that are used for the same purpose, one __init, one not __init.
So yesterday's series of __init patches is not because there were
bugs, but because it is desirable to have the situation where
static inspection of the object code shows absence of references
to .init stuff. Much better than having to reason that there is
a reference but that it will not be used.
And I agree heartily with this. I love static checking (after all, that's all that sparse does), and if you can make sure that there is one less thing to be worried about, all the better.
Of course, another option to just removing/fixing the __init is to have some way to let the static checker know things are ok, but in this case, especially with fairly small data structures, it seems much easier to just make the checker happy.