Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Add braces to initialize task_info subojects

[Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:38:30AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:26 PM Nathan Chancellor
> <natechancellor@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Clang warns if there are missing braces around a subobject
> > initializer.
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c:1447:41: warning: suggest braces
> > around initialization of subobject [-Wmissing-braces]
> >                 struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { 0 };
> >                                                       ^
> >                                                       {}
> > 1 warning generated.
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c:262:41: warning: suggest braces
> > around initialization of subobject [-Wmissing-braces]
> >                 struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { 0 };
> >                                                       ^
> >                                                       {}
> > 1 warning generated.
> >
> > Reported-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c | 2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c | 2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c
> > index 9333109b210d..968cc1b8cdff 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c
> > @@ -1444,7 +1444,7 @@ static int gmc_v8_0_process_interrupt(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
> >                 gmc_v8_0_set_fault_enable_default(adev, false);
> >
> >         if (printk_ratelimit()) {
> > -               struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { 0 };
> > +               struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { { 0 } };
> 
> Hi Nathan,
> Thanks for this patch.  I discussed this syntax with our language
> lawyers.  Turns out, this is not quite correct, as you're now saying
> "initialize the first subobject to zero, but not the rest of the
> object."  -Wmissing-field-initializers would highlight this, but it's
> not part of -Wall.  It would be more correct to zero initialize the
> full struct, including all of its subobjects with `= {};`.
> 

Good point, I was debating on which one was correct. There are several
places in this driver that use the multiple brace + 0 idiom, which is
why I used this form. I will spin up a v2 with your suggestion, thank
you for the review!

Nathan

> >
> >                 amdgpu_vm_get_task_info(adev, entry->pasid, &task_info);
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c
> > index 72f8018fa2a8..a781a5027212 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c
> > @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static int gmc_v9_0_process_interrupt(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
> >         }
> >
> >         if (printk_ratelimit()) {
> > -               struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { 0 };
> > +               struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { { 0 } };
> >
> >                 amdgpu_vm_get_task_info(adev, entry->pasid, &task_info);
> >
> > --
> > 2.18.0
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> ~Nick Desaulniers