Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 5:21 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Other things in the codebase don't check for NULL before feeding things
>> to reftable_free(), and our own free() has a coccicheck rule to catch
>> this sort of code, we should probably add reftable_free to that list...
>
> Thanks, changed.
>
>> > + struct reftable_block_source source = { NULL };
>>
>> Nit: It doesn't matter for semantics, but usually we use "{ 0 }", and
>> your 1/11 does too. Would be better to do that here for consistency.
>
> I got a past review where someone complained about this. I don't mind
> either way, but would rather not flipflop.
The last part is important.
For initializers that show the value for the first member in {} to
mean "everything is zero-initialized", only because the language
does not allow us to write
struct foo var = {};
we historically used { NULL } for pointers and { 0 } for integral
types (primarily because auto checkers like sparse did not like us
to write a NULL pointer as 0), but we started preferring { 0 } as
more recent versions of checkers understand it as an idiom, and we
can freely reorder the struct members if we consistently spell the
"everything is zero-initialized" that way.
So, let's use { 0 } here, too.
Thanks.
