Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:58:23 +0100 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] __init in mm/slab.c |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Andries Brouwer wrote: > > >>So yesterday's series of __init patches is not because there were >>bugs, but because it is desirable to have the situation where >>static inspection of the object code shows absence of references >>to .init stuff. Much better than having to reason that there is >>a reference but that it will not be used. >> >> > >And I agree heartily with this. I love static checking (after all, that's >all that sparse does), and if you can make sure that there is one less >thing to be worried about, all the better. > >Of course, another option to just removing/fixing the __init is to have >some way to let the static checker know things are ok, but in this case, >especially with fairly small data structures, it seems much easier to just >make the checker happy. > > > I agree, but a comment would have been nice. Now there are two identical structures that are used for the same purpose, one __init, one not __init.
I'd bet that sooner or later someone will ask why.
-- Manfred - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |