Corey Minyard wrote: > Randy Dunlap wrote: >> Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> Bela Lubkin wrote: >>>> Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Sometime, please go through the IPMI code looking for all these >>>>>> statically-allocated things which are initialised to 0 or NULL >>>>>> and remove all those intialisations? They're unneeded, they >>>>>> increase the vmlinux image size and there are quite a number of >>>>>> them. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Randy Dunlop replied: >>>> >>>>> I was just about to send that patch. Here it is, >>>>> on top of the series-of-12. >>>> ... >>>>> -static int bt_debug = BT_DEBUG_OFF; >>>>> +static int bt_debug; >>>> >>>> Is it wise to significantly degrade code readability to work around >>>> a minor compiler / linker bug? >>> >>> Is that the only one that is a problem? >>> >>> I don't think it's a problem. We *know* that static data areas >>> are init to 0. Everything depends on that. If that didn't work >>> it would all break. >>> >>> I could say that it's a nice coincidence that BT_DEBUG_OFF == 0, >>> but I think that it's more than coincidence. >> >> It's Corey's decision. However, while code readability is also very >> important to me, I disagree with "significantly" above. > > I think the optimizations are probably important enough that this > should be done. Let's take Randy's patch and I will add a comment to > BT_DEBUG_OFF that says that the value must be zero to correspond to > the default uninitialized value.
Patch the declaration to: static int bt_debug; /* 0 == BT_DEBUG_OFF */ Then any sort of grep / cscope / patch excerpts / etc. are self- documenting. >Bela< - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
