From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752835AbbIKMPJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:15:09 -0400 Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:36424 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752754AbbIKMPH (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:15:07 -0400 Message-ID: <1441973699.2083.6.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: static key arrays? From: Johannes Berg To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Jason Baron , linux-kernel Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:14:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20150911111003.GK18489@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1441964735.2083.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20150911111003.GK18489@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.3-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:10 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > struct static_key_false array[n] = { STATIC_KEY_FALSE_INIT, }; > > or something like that. Yeah, ok, this would be sufficient for me - no need to mix different types. I don't think that initializer works, but I guess we can just duplicate it in the code - unless we can rely on zero-initialization being sufficient. My mistake was assuming that the only API was the macros, but of if we just use the new struct names (struct static_key_false) without the macros then there isn't really an issue. Thanks, johannes