Re: [PATCH v3] staging: lustre: fix coding style errors

["<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:34:07AM +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote:
> 
> On Feb 9, 2015, at 4:34 PM, <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> There's a third coding style error in this file which I've chosen to
> >> not fix for clarity's sake. It is: initializing min_watchdog_ratelimit
> >> (static int) to 0
> > 
> > Please fix that too, it's not correct.  Drop the comment there if you
> > think that's confusing.
> 
> What's not correct there, I wonder? Just assignment of 0 to a static variable
> to get some extra clarity?
> The code in the question is:
> 
> static int min_watchdog_ratelimit = 0;    /* disable ratelimiting */
> static int max_watchdog_ratelimit = (24*60*60); /* limit to once per day */
> 
> So if you drop both = 0 and the comment, I think it would become even more cryptic?
> 
> How about something like this then (not a proper patch, but just to demonstrate
> the idea):
> 
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c
> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int proc_dobitmasks(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>                                  __proc_dobitmasks);
>  }
>  
> -static int min_watchdog_ratelimit = 0;   /* disable ratelimiting */
> +static int zero;
>  static int max_watchdog_ratelimit = (24*60*60); /* limit to once per day */

Ick, no, just do like other places have done:
  static int min_watchdog_ratelimit;	/* = 0 disable ratelimiting */