Re: [BUG ?] checkpatch.pl rejects as error something I think itought to be allow

[Andy Whitcroft]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:28:02PM -0800, Corey Ashford wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a piece of code where I have two constants defined as follows:
> 
> 	static const unsigned long polling_interval_sec = 1;
> 	static const unsigned long polling_interval_ns = 0;
> 
> Now, it's clear to me that I want these two values to have the
> keywords const and static.  I could use a #define here, but const
> static seemed cleaner to me.
> 
> When I run checkpatch.pl across this code, I get this error:
> 
> ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 or NULL.
> 
> I think the problem here is that another case is needed for "static
> const" that does allow 0.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thanks for your consideration,

The warning is intended to tell you that the = 0 is unnecessary.  Any
static is 0 by default I believe.  At some point the addition of the 0
would move the value from the bss to the data segment bloating the code.
This may no longer be true.

-apw
--
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/