From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58211 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oq8Mr-0006rV-Al
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:42:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Oq8Mq-00015p-46
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:42:01 -0400
Received: from mail-qy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.216.173]:59969)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Oq8Mq-00015h-0e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:42:00 -0400
Received: by qyk5 with SMTP id 5so3169688qyk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C7BED63.9080105@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:41:55 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 04/14] Zero initialize timespec struct
	explicitly
References: <1283182547-26116-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<1283182547-26116-5-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<4C7BD19E.1050604@codemonkey.ws>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1008302043360.1463@linmac>
	<4C7BEC96.6040506@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C7BEC96.6040506@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 08/30/2010 12:38 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 08/30/10 18:56, malc wrote:
>    
>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> On 08/30/2010 10:35 AM, Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com wrote:
>>>        
>>>> From: Jes Sorensen<Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
>>>> diff --git a/linux-aio.c b/linux-aio.c
>>>> index 68f4b3d..3240996 100644
>>>> --- a/linux-aio.c
>>>> +++ b/linux-aio.c
>>>> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static void qemu_laio_completion_cb(void *opaque)
>>>>            struct io_event events[MAX_EVENTS];
>>>>            uint64_t val;
>>>>            ssize_t ret;
>>>> -        struct timespec ts = { 0 };
>>>> +        struct timespec ts = { 0, 0 };
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> I don't like these.  What's wrong with { } or { 0 }?  Implicit zeroing of
>>> members is a critical feature of structure initialization so if there is
>>> something wrong with this, it's important to know why because otherwise we've
>>> got a massive amount of broken code.
>>>
>>>        
>> Apart from gcc complaining about fields not being initialized explicitly
>> there's nothing wrong with it.
>>      
> Sure it compiles, it works, but it's not pretty. What does it mean if
> you write = { 1 } in the above case?
>    

Initialize first field to 1 and all remaining fields to 0.

That's precisely what it means and there's a lot of code written today 
that relies on this behavior.  No doubt, c99 initializers are an 
improvement but { 0 } still looks better to me than {}.

However, I wouldn't object to replacing {0} with {}.  Avoiding {} in 
favor of memset is crazy though.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori