From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756793Ab0KOHDP (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 02:03:15 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:51158 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753452Ab0KOHDO (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 02:03:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:02:54 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Andres Salomon , Milton Miller , Grant Likely , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: OLPC: speed up device tree creation during boot (v2) Message-ID: <20101115070254.GA25243@elte.hu> References: <20101111214546.4e573cad@queued.net> <20101112002704.50c629e2@queued.net> <20101114095013.GB24206@elte.hu> <4CE0B54E.6000101@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CE0B54E.6000101@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * H. Peter Anvin wrote: > What? What is wrong with static variables in functions? It really doesn't seem > to be a good idea to make them file-scope if they don't need to be. They are very easy to overlook and mix up with regular stack variables and i've seen (and introduced myself) a number of bugs due to them. They also often are used in buggy ways (with SMP not taken into consideration), so overlooking them during review compounds their negative effects. Putting them in front of the function isnt a big deal in exchange. There are people who never overlook them (like yourself), but my brain is wired up differently. Thanks, Ingo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: OLPC: speed up device tree creation during boot (v2) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:02:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20101115070254.GA25243@elte.hu> References: <20101111214546.4e573cad@queued.net> <20101112002704.50c629e2@queued.net> <20101114095013.GB24206@elte.hu> <4CE0B54E.6000101@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CE0B54E.6000101-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Milton Miller , Ingo Molnar , Andres Salomon , Thomas Gleixner List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org * H. Peter Anvin wrote: > What? What is wrong with static variables in functions? It really doesn't seem > to be a good idea to make them file-scope if they don't need to be. They are very easy to overlook and mix up with regular stack variables and i've seen (and introduced myself) a number of bugs due to them. They also often are used in buggy ways (with SMP not taken into consideration), so overlooking them during review compounds their negative effects. Putting them in front of the function isnt a big deal in exchange. There are people who never overlook them (like yourself), but my brain is wired up differently. Thanks, Ingo