From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45759 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oq7mS-00067p-Ar for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:04:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oq7mR-0003EY-5T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:04:24 -0400 Received: from fe01x03-cgp.akado.ru ([77.232.31.164]:59864 helo=akado.ru) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oq7mQ-0003EN-Uk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:04:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:04:00 +0400 (MSD) From: malc Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 04/14] Zero initialize timespec struct explicitly In-Reply-To: <4C7BD46B.8090106@redhat.com> Message-ID: 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> <4C7BD46B.8090106@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jes Sorensen Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 08/30/10 17:43, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > On 08/30/2010 10:35 AM, Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com wrote: > >> From: Jes Sorensen > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jes Sorensen > >> --- > >> linux-aio.c | 2 +- > >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >> > >> 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. > > The specific case above is really inconsistent. Either do {} or {0, 0}, > doing just {0} means it is initializing just one element in the struct. > That is broken IMHO. > No it doesn't mean that. In this particular case all the fields of ts will be set to zero, for specific wording look at 6.7.9#21 -- mailto:av1474@comtv.ru