From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:13:47 +0100 From: Andy Whitcroft Subject: Re: [patch 05/18] hugetlb: multiple hstates Message-ID: <20080428101347.GA5401@shadowen.org> References: <20080423015302.745723000@nick.local0.net> <20080423015430.162027000@nick.local0.net> <20080425173827.GC9680@us.ibm.com> <20080425175503.GG3265@one.firstfloor.org> <20080425175249.GE9680@us.ibm.com> <20080425181056.GH3265@one.firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080425181056.GH3265@one.firstfloor.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen , Nishanth Aravamudan , akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: npiggin@suse.de, linux-mm@kvack.org, kniht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, abh@cray.com, wli@holomorphy.com List-ID: On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 08:10:56PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:52:49AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > On 25.04.2008 [19:55:03 +0200], Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Unnecessary initializations (and whitespace)? > > > > > > Actually gcc generates exactly the same code for 0 and no > > > initialization. > > > > All supported gcc's? Then checkpatch should be fixed? > > 3.3-hammer did it already, 3.2 didn't. 3.2 is nominally still > supposed but I don't think we care particularly about its code > quality. > > Yes checkpatch should be fixed. Cirtainly on this 4.1.2 I randomly picked to test, the size of the data segment seems unchanged by initialisation to zero. It ends up in the BSS as expected. So I guess the question is do we want to maintain this recommendation for consistency or has it outlived its usefulness? Opinions? -apw -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org