Re: [PATCH] fastboot: Introduce an asynchronous function callmechanism

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:52:52 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 09:59:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:52:46 -0400 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:41:17 -0700
> > > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > +static int async_active = 0;
> > > > 
> > > > ?
> > > ok will add comment
> > 
> > I was actually "?"ing at the "= 0".  I thought that would be obvious
> > but it's whizzed past two people so far :(
> 
> Is there evidence that some gccs will not add such variable to .bss?

It does get placed in bss.

> Because "= 0;" is more readable.

Only to someone who doesn't know anything about C.

For the rest of us it is inconsistent, is a visual distraction and
wastes space which would be better taken up by a comment explaining the
variable's function (lol).

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/