From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: block/bsg.c Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:12:26 -0400 Message-ID: <469C177A.3080002@garzik.org> References: <20070716165706.348f6bbf.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <469C11B1.8000302@garzik.org> <20070716175347.bea345dd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <469C1423.3090908@garzik.org> <20070716180908.e15325bd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:38780 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752928AbXGQBMd (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:12:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070716180908.e15325bd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: FUJITA Tomonori , Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > Yup, but the concern (from Al, iirc) was that someone could change the code > later on, add a new bug and have that bug hidden by the unneeded > initialisation. True. That's why #gccbug went the safe route, took the cost of extra instructions, and initialized it to zero. > uninitialized_var() has the advantage that it generates no code, whereas "= > 0" often adds instructions. Plus of course it is self-documenting, greppable-for > and centrally alterable. Agreed. Jeff