From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: "Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@intel.com>
Cc: "gleb@kernel.org" <gleb@kernel.org>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] x86/kvm: Resolve some missing-initializers warnings
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:50:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53DA73D2.8030404@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3BBCD2CE-7970-40CF-A9C0-8597D3D3CF25@intel.com>
Il 31/07/2014 18:35, Rustad, Mark D ha scritto:
> I agree it is ugly. .name = NULL would be enough to silence it. Would
> that be better? At the moment I am thinking of this as a test case
> for the other 1000 { } and {0} initializers in the kernel that are
> throwing warnings. I know we both agree that the compiler really
> shouldn't be warning on them, but they currently make a lot noise.
>
> How would you feel about a macro called something like ZERO_ENTRY
> defined something like:
>
> #define ZERO_ENTRY DIAG_PUSH DIAG_IGNORE(missing-field-initializers)
> { } DIAG_POP
>
> Where the DIAG_ macros pretty much do what you think. I have another
> patch series that Jeff hasn't gotten to yet that defines such macros.
> Of course they get put to good use.
>
> At this point, I'll put the terminator back the way it was, but I
> would still like your opinion on the macro approach to addressing all
> of these terminators.
If you get such a macro in include/linux, I will of course accept its usage.
Paolo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-31 16:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-25 13:27 [PATCH 1/4] x86/kvm: Resolve some missing-initializers warnings Jeff Kirsher
2014-07-25 13:27 ` [PATCH 2/4] kvm: Resolve missing-field-initializers warnings Jeff Kirsher
2014-07-25 14:06 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-07-25 13:27 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86/kvm: Resolve shadow warnings in macro expansion Jeff Kirsher
2014-07-25 14:06 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-07-25 17:18 ` Rustad, Mark D
2014-07-26 7:34 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-07-30 21:19 ` [PATCH V2 " Mark D Rustad
2014-07-31 11:50 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-07-31 16:59 ` [PATCH V3 " Mark D Rustad
2014-07-25 13:27 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86/kvm: Resolve shadow warning from min macro Jeff Kirsher
2014-07-25 14:06 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-07-25 14:04 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86/kvm: Resolve some missing-initializers warnings Paolo Bonzini
2014-07-30 21:18 ` [PATCH V2 " Mark D Rustad
2014-07-31 11:50 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-07-31 16:35 ` Rustad, Mark D
2014-07-31 16:50 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53DA73D2.8030404@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@kernel.org \
--cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.d.rustad@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.