On Feb 9, 2015, at 4:34 PM, <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 */
static int __proc_dump_kernel(void *data, int write,
@@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ static struct ctl_table lnet_table[] = {
.maxlen = sizeof(int),
.mode = 0644,
.proc_handler = &proc_dointvec_minmax,
- .extra1 = &min_watchdog_ratelimit,
+ .extra1 = &zero, /* Disable ratelimiting */
.extra2 = &max_watchdog_ratelimit,
},
{
Bye,
Oleg
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
