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

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 11/18/2010 09:41 AM, Andres Salomon wrote:
>>
>> No, sorry, this sounds like a personal preference that is well out of
>> line with the vast majority of C programmers I've ever come across,
>> not just in the Linux kernel world but outside of it.
> 
> 
> This is actually one of the reasons I specifically like initialized
> static variables (inside of functions).  Take the following code:
> 
> int foo(void)
> {
> 	static char *frob = NULL;
> 	int p;
> 
> 	if (frob) {
> 		...
> 	}
> 
> 
> Upon seeing that and thinking "whoa, how could frob be
> initialized and then checked?", I realize that it's either a bug or I
> look back at the initialization and realize that frob is static.  It's
> less obvious (to me) with non-explicit initialization.

I have to agree with this one.  In general I dislike relying on an
implicit (even well-defined) initialized value; unfortunately we ripped
out explicit initializations across the Linux kernel, not due to
readability but due to the fact that long-since-obsolete versions of gcc
would put explicitly-initialized variables in data rather than bss even
if the initial value is zero.

	-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/