On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 02:44:34PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:40 PM Nathan Chancellor
> <natechancellor at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 at 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 at google.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor at 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!
>
> Feel free to fix up the others as well. The others were only changed
> due to the same warning you sent the patch for.
>
> Alex
>
Hi Alex,
Thank you for the information, I will do that in v2.
Thanks,
Nathan
> >
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > amd-gfx mailing list
> > amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
