Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fsck.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fsck.h b/fsck.h
> index 2274843ba0..40f3cb3f64 100644
> --- a/fsck.h
> +++ b/fsck.h
> @@ -43,8 +43,22 @@ struct fsck_options {
> kh_oid_map_t *object_names;
> };
>
> -#define FSCK_OPTIONS_DEFAULT { NULL, fsck_error_function, 0, NULL, OIDSET_INIT, NULL }
> -#define FSCK_OPTIONS_STRICT { NULL, fsck_error_function, 1, NULL, OIDSET_INIT, NULL }
> +#define FSCK_OPTIONS_DEFAULT { \
> + .walk = NULL, \
> + .error_func = fsck_error_function, \
> + .strict = 0, \
> + .msg_type = NULL, \
> + .skiplist = OIDSET_INIT, \
> + .object_names = NULL, \
> +}
> +#define FSCK_OPTIONS_STRICT { \
> + .walk = NULL, \
> + .error_func = fsck_error_function, \
> + .strict = 1, \
> + .msg_type = NULL, \
> + .skiplist = OIDSET_INIT, \
> + .object_names = NULL, \
> +}
Being explicit is good, but spelling out zero initialization sounds
more like cluttering than clarifying. I do not mind .strict = 0 in
the DEFAULT one only because it contrasts well with .strict = 1 on
the STRICT side, but it would be easier to read to omit these zero
initilization of the .walk, .msg_type and .object_names members.
> /* descend in all linked child objects
> * the return value is:
