From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:6f8:1178:4:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1X2ck5-0000rr-9K for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 08:51:46 +0000 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 10:51:22 +0200 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= Message-ID: <20140703085122.GT14781@pengutronix.de> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] automount: check for recursive automount To: Rolf Evers-Fischer Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:34:37AM +0200, Rolf Evers-Fischer wrote: > Hi Sascha, > = > Sascha Hauer wrote: > > + static int in_automount; > > + > > + if (in_automount) > > + return; > = > It seems that we are using the 'in_automount' without initialization. = > Shouldn't we initialize the static 'in_automount' with 0? Or can we rely = > on the compiler, that all statics will be initialized with zeros? static variables are initialized to 0 (for pointers: NULL) by the compiler. Best regards Uwe -- = Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox