[PATCH v3] staging: lustre: fix coding style errors

[Drokin, Oleg]

On Feb 9, 2015, at 4:34 PM, <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> There's a third coding style error in this file which I've chosen to
>> not fix for clarity's sake. It is: initializing min_watchdog_ratelimit
>> (static int) to 0
> 
> Please fix that too, it's not correct.  Drop the comment there if you
> think that's confusing.

What's not correct there, I wonder? Just assignment of 0 to a static variable
to get some extra clarity?
The code in the question is:

static int min_watchdog_ratelimit = 0;    /* disable ratelimiting */
static int max_watchdog_ratelimit = (24*60*60); /* limit to once per day */

So if you drop both = 0 and the comment, I think it would become even more cryptic?

How about something like this then (not a proper patch, but just to demonstrate
the idea):

--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-proc.c
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int proc_dobitmasks(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
                                 __proc_dobitmasks);
 }
 
-static int min_watchdog_ratelimit = 0;   /* disable ratelimiting */
+static int zero;
 static int max_watchdog_ratelimit = (24*60*60); /* limit to once per day */
 
 static int __proc_dump_kernel(void *data, int write,
@@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ static struct ctl_table lnet_table[] = {
                .maxlen   = sizeof(int),
                .mode     = 0644,
                .proc_handler = &proc_dointvec_minmax,
-               .extra1   = &min_watchdog_ratelimit,
+               .extra1   = &zero, /* Disable ratelimiting */
                .extra2   = &max_watchdog_ratelimit,
        },
        {

Bye,
    Oleg