Re: [PATCH -v2] x86: allocate cpumask during check irq vectors

[Ingo Molnar]

* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I strongly disagree with putting variables in file scope when 
> function scope will do, [...]

Yes, you are right that single-use file scope statics 'could' be moved 
function local and are syntactically superior because in that case 
other functions cannot make use of it.

But I also have very good (and unfixable and thus stronger) reasons to 
object to statics inside local variables: more than once I personally 
missed 'hidden statics' during review, in one case it even slipped 
into a commit, so it's not a practice I want to encourage in any shape 
or form (even if the 'rule' is to have a big fat comment, people will 
just see the function local static and emulate it without the 
comment), for code I maintain.

It's not about you, it's about me and other reviewers: I've seen 
statics slipping past other reviewers as well. So it's the lesser of 
two evils. Can you accept that reasoning?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/