On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:37:30PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 02:37:20PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On 7/28/21 2:14 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 10:59:22AM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > >>> drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c | 5 +-- > > >>> include/uapi/linux/omap3isp.h | 44 +++++++++++++++++------ > > >>> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > >>> > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c > > >>> index 5b9b57f4d9bf..ea8222fed38e 100644 > > >>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c > > >>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c > > >>> @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ int omap3isp_stat_request_statistics(struct ispstat *stat, > > >>> int omap3isp_stat_request_statistics_time32(struct ispstat *stat, > > >>> struct omap3isp_stat_data_time32 *data) > > >>> { > > >>> - struct omap3isp_stat_data data64; > > >>> + struct omap3isp_stat_data data64 = { }; > > >> > > >> Should this be { 0 } ? > > >> > > >> We've seen patches trying to switch from { 0 } to { } but the answer > > >> was that { 0 } is supposed to be used, > > >> http://www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/random/initialise.html > > >> > > >> (from https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fbddb15a-6e46-3f21-23ba-b18f66e3448a@xxxxxxxx/) > > > > > > In the kernel we don't care about portability so much. Use the = { } > > > GCC extension. If the first member of the struct is a pointer then > > > Sparse will complain about = { 0 }. > > > > +1 for { }. > > Oh, I thought the tendency is is to use { 0 } because that can also > intialize the compound members, by a "scalar 0" as it appears in the > code. > Holes in the structure might not be initialized to anything if you do either one of these as well. Or did we finally prove that is not the case? I can not remember anymore... greg k-h