From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [0/3] lenovo-sl-laptop : new driver for drivers/staging Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:29:49 +0100 Message-ID: <20090215182948.GA1286@cmpxchg.org> References: <20090214051214.359d4fd4@leftboat.lan> <20090214145256.GA7071@infradead.org> <1234627163.7293.196.camel@violet> <20090215122956.GB7660@khazad-dum.debian.net> <4ab4bbae0902150835h1158118wcb95be75d17ec37c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ab4bbae0902150835h1158118wcb95be75d17ec37c@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Alexandre Rostovtsev Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Marcel Holtmann , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-laptop@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:35:32AM -0500, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh > wrote: > > We will be happy to review the driver in linux-acpi. Submitting it as > > a single patch against latest Linus is probably best. > > I think I found the fan speed interface; I will resubmit to linux-acpi > after I finish it. > > > Oh, and it > > should be checkpatch-clean if it isn't already. > > Checkpatch complains about static variables initialized to 0. Since > it's my first time writing kernel code, I have to ask what are > probably obvious questions. > 1. Why is initializing a static variable to 0 bad? or worse than > initializing that variable to 1, or -1? > 2. If I want to have a module parameter whose default value is 0, what > should I do to stop checkpatch from complaining? Static variables are initialized to zero automatically. static int foo; is equivalent to static int foo = 0;