On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:34:07AM +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote: > > 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 */ Ick, no, just do like other places have done: static int min_watchdog_ratelimit; /* = 0 disable ratelimiting */ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
