RE: [Openipmi-developer] [PATCH 9/12] IPMI: add pigeonpoint poweroff

[Bela Lubkin]

Corey Minyard wrote: 
> Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> Bela Lubkin wrote:
>>>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Sometime, please go through the IPMI code looking for all these
>>>>>> statically-allocated things which are initialised to 0 or NULL
>>>>>> and remove all those intialisations?  They're unneeded, they
>>>>>> increase the vmlinux image size and there are quite a number of
>>>>>> them.  Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Randy Dunlop replied:
>>>>
>>>>> I was just about to send that patch.  Here it is,
>>>>> on top of the series-of-12.
>>>> ...
>>>>> -static int bt_debug = BT_DEBUG_OFF;
>>>>> +static int bt_debug;
>>>>
>>>> Is it wise to significantly degrade code readability to work around
>>>> a minor compiler / linker bug?
>>>
>>> Is that the only one that is a problem?
>>>
>>> I don't think it's a problem.  We *know* that static data areas
>>> are init to 0.  Everything depends on that.  If that didn't work
>>> it would all break.
>>>
>>> I could say that it's a nice coincidence that BT_DEBUG_OFF == 0,
>>> but I think that it's more than coincidence.
>>
>> It's Corey's decision.  However, while code readability is also very
>> important to me, I disagree with "significantly" above.
>
> I think the optimizations are probably important enough that this
> should be done.  Let's take Randy's patch and I will add a comment to
> BT_DEBUG_OFF that says that the value must be zero to correspond to
> the default uninitialized value.

Patch the declaration to:

  static int bt_debug;  /* 0 == BT_DEBUG_OFF */

Then any sort of grep / cscope / patch excerpts / etc. are self-
documenting.

>Bela<
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/