Re: [PATCH] __init in mm/slab.c

[Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Andries Brouwer wrote:
>  
>
>>So yesterday's series of __init patches is not because there were
>>bugs, but because it is desirable to have the situation where
>>static inspection of the object code shows absence of references
>>to .init stuff. Much better than having to reason that there is
>>a reference but that it will not be used.
>>    
>>
>
>And I agree heartily with this. I love static checking (after all, that's 
>all that sparse does), and if you can make sure that there is one less 
>thing to be worried about, all the better.
>
>Of course, another option to just removing/fixing the __init is to have 
>some way to let the static checker know things are ok, but in this case, 
>especially with fairly small data structures, it seems much easier to just 
>make the checker happy.
>
>  
>
I agree, but a comment would have been nice. Now there are two identical 
structures that are used for the same purpose, one __init, one not __init.

I'd bet that sooner or later someone will ask why.

--
    Manfred