From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752163AbXBWIM5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2007 03:12:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752165AbXBWIM5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2007 03:12:57 -0500 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.190]:42823 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752163AbXBWIM4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2007 03:12:56 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=gF18rO9o6eRZCsZOBdxzokndxWZAHDHrK5Ta7nqkJzUUM/P/M2MEXAmvEFcuo2m5K9emcSt09/CNxFwcEaxntW1H/sDg/wb935WsHPF5DO04YtZE2xJ2MFtemjECr0S18HqA4n0Ey5dNJg0y1AlbszYnvg9EOdWKdIM9h39W8E4= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:10:05 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Pete Zaitcev Cc: linux-kernel-list Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB Elan FTDI: check for workqueue creation Message-ID: <20070223081005.GB10055@cvg> References: <20070219181549.GB10111@cvg> <20070222155523.53e649a3.zaitcev@redhat.com> <20070223075322.GA10055@cvg> <20070222235738.f36e534a.zaitcev@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070222235738.f36e534a.zaitcev@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:57:38PM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote: | On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:53:22 +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | | > | > -static struct workqueue_struct *status_queue; | > | > +static struct workqueue_struct *status_queue = NULL; | | > | You better drop this part. Someone is bound to object. | | > actually I don't understand why... Event on ftdi_elan_exit() | > status_queue is setting up to NULL. And what is bound to object? | > Could you write more detailed? | | All these variables are static, they are already initialized to zero. | | -- Pete | Pete, I may be wrong, but a lot of the kernel code have static pointers initialized to NULL with explicit manner... More over I always thought that _static_ is not mean _initialized to zero_. I think _static_ is just the method to _hide_ variables in the file (as ANSI C describes). Am I wrong? Cyrill