Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] mm: Initialize struct vm_unmapped_area_info
Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.alpha,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.linux.ports.parisc,gmane.linux.kernel.mm,gmane.linux.kernel.arc,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.mips,gmane.linux.ports.sparc |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Le 28/02/2024 à 18:01, Edgecombe, Rick P a écrit :
> On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 13:22 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> Any preference? Or maybe am I missing your point and talking
>>> nonsense?
>>>
>>
>> So my preference would go to the addition of:
>>
>> info.new_field = 0;
>>
>> But that's very minor and if you think it is easier to manage and
>> maintain by performing {} initialisation at declaration, lets go for
>> that.
>
> Appreciate the clarification and help getting this right. I'm thinking
> Kees' and now Kirill's point about this patch resulting in unnecessary
> manual zero initialization of the structs is probably something that
> needs to be addressed.
>
> If I created a bunch of patches to change each call site, I think the
> the best is probably to do the designated field zero initialization
> way.
>
> But I can do something for powerpc special if you want. I'll first try
> with powerpc matching the others, and if it seems objectionable, please
> let me know.
>
My comments were generic, it was not powerpc oriented. Please keep
powerpc as similar as possible with others.
Christophe