[PATCH] libata: do not initialise statics to 0 ERROR fix.

[PATCH] libata: do not initialise statics to 0 ERROR fix.

[Minwoo Im]

ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 in four lines in libata-core.c.
Signed-off-by: Minwoo Im <dn3108@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/ata/libata-core.c |    8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
index 2191d23..8ed5bf3 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ struct ata_force_ent {
 module_param(atapi_enabled, int, 0444);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(atapi_enabled, "Enable discovery of ATAPI devices (0=off, 1=on [default])");
 
-static int atapi_dmadir = 0;
+static int atapi_dmadir;
 module_param(atapi_dmadir, int, 0444);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(atapi_dmadir, "Enable ATAPI DMADIR bridge support (0=off [default], 1=on)");
 
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ struct ata_force_ent {
 module_param(atapi_passthru16, int, 0444);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(atapi_passthru16, "Enable ATA_16 passthru for ATAPI devices (0=off, 1=on [default])");
 
-int libata_fua = 0;
+int libata_fua;
 module_param_named(fua, libata_fua, int, 0444);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(fua, "FUA support (0=off [default], 1=on)");
 
@@ -159,11 +159,11 @@ struct ata_force_ent {
 module_param(ata_probe_timeout, int, 0444);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(ata_probe_timeout, "Set ATA probing timeout (seconds)");
 
-int libata_noacpi = 0;
+int libata_noacpi;
 module_param_named(noacpi, libata_noacpi, int, 0444);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(noacpi, "Disable the use of ACPI in probe/suspend/resume (0=off [default], 1=on)");
 
-int libata_allow_tpm = 0;
+int libata_allow_tpm;
 module_param_named(allow_tpm, libata_allow_tpm, int, 0444);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(allow_tpm, "Permit the use of TPM commands (0=off [default], 1=on)");
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH] libata: do not initialise statics to 0 ERROR fix.

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 04:03:04PM +0900, Minwoo Im wrote:
> ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 in four lines in libata-core.c.
> Signed-off-by: Minwoo Im <dn3108@gmail.com>

I don't think there's much value in sweeping the code base with
checkpatch.  We can fix them when changing code around them or there's
a meaningful gain from it (e.g. doc updates which improve doc
processing) but otherwise I think it's churns for churns' sake.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Re: [PATCH] libata: do not initialise statics to 0 ERROR fix.

[Minwoo Im]

On 6/20/17, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 04:03:04PM +0900, Minwoo Im wrote:
>> ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 in four lines in libata-core.c.
>> Signed-off-by: Minwoo Im <dn3108@gmail.com>
>
> I don't think there's much value in sweeping the code base with
> checkpatch.  We can fix them when changing code around them or there's
> a meaningful gain from it (e.g. doc updates which improve doc
> processing) but otherwise I think it's churns for churns' sake.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun

good

Re: [PATCH] libata: do not initialise statics to 0 ERROR fix.

[Minwoo Im]

On 6/20/17, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 04:03:04PM +0900, Minwoo Im wrote:
>> ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 in four lines in libata-core.c.
>> Signed-off-by: Minwoo Im <dn3108@gmail.com>
>
> I don't think there's much value in sweeping the code base with
> checkpatch.  We can fix them when changing code around them or there's
> a meaningful gain from it (e.g. doc updates which improve doc
> processing) but otherwise I think it's churns for churns' sake.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
>

(resending in plain text to mail loop)

Hi Tejun,

I completely agree with your thought.
Thanks for giving your opinion.

Minwoo.