On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 03:32:42AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 20.08.2014 02:45, schrieb Guenter Roeck:
> > The kernel core now supports a restart handler call chain for system
> > restart functions.
> >
> > With this change, the arm_pm_restart callback is now optional, so
> > drop its initialization and check if it is set before calling it.
> > Only call the kernel restart handler if arm_pm_restart is not set.
> [...]
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> > index 81ef686..ea279f7 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> > @@ -114,17 +114,13 @@ void soft_restart(unsigned long addr)
> > BUG();
> > }
> >
> > -static void null_restart(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd)
> > -{
> > -}
> > -
> > /*
> > * Function pointers to optional machine specific functions
> > */
> > void (*pm_power_off)(void);
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(pm_power_off);
> >
> > -void (*arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd) = null_restart;
> > +void (*arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd);
>
> Stupid newbie question maybe, but isn't this variable uninitialized now,
> like any non-static variable in C99? Or does the kernel assure that all
> such "fields" are zero-initialized?
>
It is initialized with NULL, like all other global and static variables in the
kernel (and like pm_power_off a few lines above).
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
