From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0B1A15099D; Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:34:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728992081; cv=none; b=fwzddyZs+EPMnuZUO9lGzVIMpjFNGa/t9PFJ9MlU31JDBh2sLj6MrlRQv+gaSUdYGp4eDsNI7Sa8DH+QEqTJyqtlYqatU/XY2Vk2s8CJ+S001J3SFmj7rgyqgC+dlsvvYqYLrjCKiF3irD686IXsR0zBrkLzfIjkkb5R9HzOpJQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728992081; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QQ5YIhldVyNwIwAkOJehyVg5fvH4Y/bF5BwZEh4dw2A=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PfawJDtcnaf/O5NnEpLkeuA7W+cHzSvVvpIIHlodZzit4xQwzB7CIx5rs4Pf0zZ3ealFmvEd+WGP8T43D3FCCcGmw6OlygsGLscSHfylkKzEUe68pSJDSW/Bh09K1BF4lnq83EufGn8AQB7gt4M9/zfr9zB1Afpb0yRvTNUn0ak= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=L5Q0OswE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="L5Q0OswE" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1728992080; x=1760528080; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=QQ5YIhldVyNwIwAkOJehyVg5fvH4Y/bF5BwZEh4dw2A=; b=L5Q0OswEQrZtscwOaWu9hbtuTkIenWl0Sk3ZDVo999MmGO7tg/g/PIQX RArTkDexryrBIsItX0SsTRXA5J9RodjuoJqLFTBK+XCC9HizavSXAAxSD LpIF9FufqL0F087kpfq22PbZC4ey1Cd7OA/SvQR5TtQU7qtTZmmnCYm/q d5GweydUzr+Pt2t1AZwvaq1+wMTy2LbtBjyJzgKo6klcUjQmVhg3LNVJq sB+MM+vLRV+ceT9FoBPZDlmbUzalHRXUEtMPbhfr9SQmHiLTzyzxy2W1C vfLTy2f7tbYBy0lMHW+uk01I0A8awlIoixsd6d6vTdfBI8utO1TLexkPT w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 7g2GMlWbQaGZjWExOjYAiw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: MypAoUM6TxaUPFWC2TX6hw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11222"; a="38933972" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,199,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="38933972" Received: from orviesa004.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.144]) by orvoesa103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Oct 2024 04:34:40 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: aDq4v7IAQlKN3BvHFnTo+g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: uBeHfze4QbexSbsA0OX6bQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,205,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="82916412" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.154]) by orviesa004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Oct 2024 04:34:36 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1t0fov-00000003Fds-1u6y; Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:34:33 +0300 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:34:33 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Omer Faruk BULUT Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jirislaby@kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com, paulmck@kernel.org, john.ogness@linutronix.de, tony@atomide.com, arnd@arndb.de, u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] 8250_core.c : Global variable shouldn't be initialized to NULL Message-ID: References: <20241014180415.2365-1-m.omerfarukbulut@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241014180415.2365-1-m.omerfarukbulut@gmail.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 09:04:15PM +0300, Omer Faruk BULUT wrote: > I check it with checkpatch. Then remove the NULL part. checkpatch may be false positive. Please, add a better analysis that it's fine to do a such cleanup. Note, this variable is _not_ static. ... > -const struct uart_ops *univ8250_port_base_ops = NULL; > +const struct uart_ops *univ8250_port_base_ops; Is it guaranteed to be NULL for non-static variables? If so, we want to know the details. > struct uart_ops univ8250_port_ops; -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko