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

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 11/14/2010 11:02 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/