Hi Jens, Thanks for your explanation regarding the comma initialization. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing something that would break certain compilers. I was able to isolate the bug and reproduce it on one of my machines. I then created the fix and found that the bug was no longer reproducible with the fixed binary on the one machine (as of last Friday May 1st 2015) . I am currently running the tests that discovered the initial issue on multiple machines. The tests may take some time to complete and upon completion I'll post my findings. - Brian On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/04/2015 05:17 PM, Brian Fulton wrote: >> >> Hi Jens, >> >> Akash and I both discovered this bug and work together. He is >> currently on holiday for the next two weeks or so. I am currently >> using the same tests that originally discovered the bug to verify it >> is fixed. > > > Ah perfect, I didn't realize that! > >> Out of curiosity, why is the comma required after the zero in order to >> initialize all elements to zero? I used this initializer instead of >> memset just as it was used here: >> https://github.com/axboe/fio/blob/master/cgroup.c#L26. Are there >> certain compilers that require the comma? I also checked the C99 spec >> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf, Section >> 6.7.8, page 125, sections 1 and 21. I just want to make sure I'm not >> loosing my mind. > > > Actually I might be mistaken, it's just an array. For structs you need the > comma to ensure it zero fills the rest of the members, for arrays I believe > your approach was actually fine. > > -- > Jens Axboe > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
