On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 02:32:29PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 12:05:19PM +0000, Alexandru Moise wrote: > > fs_path_alloc() either returns an alloc'ed struct fs_path > > or NULL, no need to initialize the pointer to NULL. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Moise <[email protected]> > > --- > > fs/btrfs/send.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c > > index aa72bfd..0019c90 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c > > @@ -2230,7 +2230,7 @@ static int get_cur_path(struct send_ctx *sctx, u64 > > ino, u64 gen, > > struct fs_path *dest) > > { > > int ret = 0; > > - struct fs_path *name = NULL; > > + struct fs_path *name; > > I'd rather see all such instances fixed in one patch. Quick grep > revealed a few more. OTOH this kind of extra initialization is harmless > and sometimes help readability, it's clear that he value is zeroed.
When you put it like that, you are right, it's more important to make things obvious than to fiercely abide by all the subtleties of our coding style. I submit to your point of view and will not insist on this kind of change in the future. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
