On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Tony Olech wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 16:14 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011, Tony Olech wrote: > > > There are 5 "do not initialise statics" errors reported by scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > you probably should fix those. They are due to lines such as: > > > > static int pad_input_to_usb_pkt = 0; > > static int disable_offload_processing = 0; > > static int force_1_bit_data_xfers = 0; > > static int force_polling_for_irqs = 0; > > > > Since those are global variables, you may omit to initialize them to 0 > > which would then allocate them to the .bss section which is not included > > in the compiled binary, and automatically cleared to zero at run time > > Nicolas > Yes they are due to exactly that, BUT I have a great aversion to using > uninitialized variables. How can initializing all one's variables be > considered a bug???? Let me repeat myself. Uninitialized global scope variables are by definition assigned to the .bss section. The .bss section is dynamically allocated at run time rather than being stored in the compiled binary, and also cleared to zero at run time. So the preference is for zero-initialized global variables not to be initialized at all because 1) they are implicitly initialized to zero anyway, and 2) that makes the resulting binaries smaller. So this is not about fixing a bug, but rather to conform to the adopted policy for kernel code. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
