I guess this patch will be ignored. I will drop it then. Thanks for the discussion.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:50:23am +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 5:29 PM Willy Wolff <willy.mh.wolff...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Thank you for your review. > > > > I follow https://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch to write this patch. > > It's not stated that checkpatch.pl is for new patches only. Moreover, > > https://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch#Running_checkpatch.pl suggest to > > run over the entire file. > > I'm not sure about the source of that recommendation. > > In any case, running it over the entire file doesn't mean that you > should or even need to make all of the warnings in that file go away. > I understand that, but it was shown as ERROR. There are some other warnings for long lines that I skip. > > Also, uninitialised static global variable are initialised to 0 by default. > > Thus, initialising driver_deferred_probe_enable to false (which is 0) is > > redundant. > > Yes, it is redundant, but it also is harmless AFAICS. > > > As my knowledge, initialised global goes to .data section, and uninitialised > > goes to .bss. > > > > What does it mean for the kernel? Is this still hold? > > No, I don't think so. > > > Are performance or memory footprint of the kernel be affected? > > No, they aren't. > > The only difference this makes is the removal of redundant > initialization to 0, which may be regarded as a cleanup, but not as a > fix IMO. Ok, will stated as a cleanup in the future. > > If that's the only reason you have to change the file in question, > doing something else instead of that may be a better allocation of > your time. Thank you for your advice. I was just having my nose on it while playing with something else, it wasn't a hide-and-seek game. > > Thanks!
