From: Greg KH > Sent: 02 November 2020 20:11 > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 02:43:45PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 1:42 PM Deepak R Varma <mh12gx2825@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Initializing global variable to 0 or NULL is not necessary and should > > > be avoided. Issue reported by checkpatch script as: > > > ERROR: do not initialise globals to 0 (or NULL). > > > > I agree that this is technically correct, but a lot of people don't > > seem to know that so we get a lot of comments about this code for the > > variables that are not explicitly set. Seems less confusing to > > initialize them even if it not necessary. I don't have a particularly > > strong opinion on it however. > > The kernel coding style is to do it this way. You even save space and > time by doing it as well :) Uninitialised globals end up as 'named common' (variables that are their own code section - from FORTRAN) until the final link puts them into the .bss. Globals initialised to 0 go into the .bss of the object file being created. So both end up in the final .bss. If the code goes into a module you aren't allowed 'common' data in a module to every global must be initialised. I'm surprised checkpatch complains. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales) _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
