From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: OLPC: speed up device tree creation during boot
	(v2)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:48:59 -0800
Message-ID: <4CE5670B.1060300@zytor.com>
References: <20101111214546.4e573cad@queued.net>	<reply-olpc-3-v2@mdm.bga.com>	<20101112002704.50c629e2@queued.net>	<20101114095013.GB24206@elte.hu>	<4CE0B54E.6000101@zytor.com>	<20101115070254.GA25243@elte.hu>	<4CE17133.2050101@zytor.com>	<20101118083420.GC26398@elte.hu>	<1290078135.22575.4.camel@concordia>	<4CE54064.6010702@zytor.com>
	<20101118094153.4515cbc2@queued.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <20101118094153.4515cbc2-pFFUokh25LWsTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/devicetree-discuss>,
	<mailto:devicetree-discuss-request-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:devicetree-discuss-request-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss>,
	<mailto:devicetree-discuss-request-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org?subject=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: Andres Salomon <dilinger-pFFUokh25LWsTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org>
Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Milton Miller <miltonm-ogEGBHC/i9Y@public.gmane.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On 11/18/2010 09:41 AM, Andres Salomon wrote:
>>
>> No, sorry, this sounds like a personal preference that is well out of
>> line with the vast majority of C programmers I've ever come across,
>> not just in the Linux kernel world but outside of it.
> 
> 
> This is actually one of the reasons I specifically like initialized
> static variables (inside of functions).  Take the following code:
> 
> int foo(void)
> {
> 	static char *frob = NULL;
> 	int p;
> 
> 	if (frob) {
> 		...
> 	}
> 
> 
> Upon seeing that and thinking "whoa, how could frob be
> initialized and then checked?", I realize that it's either a bug or I
> look back at the initialization and realize that frob is static.  It's
> less obvious (to me) with non-explicit initialization.

I have to agree with this one.  In general I dislike relying on an
implicit (even well-defined) initialized value; unfortunately we ripped
out explicit initializations across the Linux kernel, not due to
readability but due to the fact that long-since-obsolete versions of gcc
would put explicitly-initialized variables in data rather than bss even
if the initial value is zero.

	-hpa


-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.