Re: [BUG ?] checkpatch.pl rejects as error something I think it oughtto be allow

[Corey Ashford]

On 02/21/2011 03:40 PM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:28:02PM -0800, Corey Ashford wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a piece of code where I have two constants defined as follows:
> >
> > 	static const unsigned long polling_interval_sec = 1;
> > 	static const unsigned long polling_interval_ns = 0;
> >
> > Now, it's clear to me that I want these two values to have the
> > keywords const and static.  I could use a #define here, but const
> > static seemed cleaner to me.
> >
> > When I run checkpatch.pl across this code, I get this error:
> >
> > ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL.
> >
> > I think the problem here is that another case is needed for "static
> > const" that does allow 0.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks for your consideration,
>
> The warning is intended to tell you that the = 0 is unnecessary.  Any
> static is 0 by default I believe.  At some point the addition of the 0
> would move the value from the bss to the data segment bloating the code.
> This may no longer be true.

OK, but that means I'd have to have a declaration like this, which looks 
quite odd to me:

	static const poll_interval_ns; /* = 0 */

I don't think that is preferable to this:

	static const poll_interval_ns = 0;

- Corey
--
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/