Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
>> +static int migrate_one_reflog(const char *refname, void *cb_data)
>> +{
>> + struct migration_data *migration_data = cb_data;
>> + struct reflog_migration_data data;
>> +
>> + data.refname = refname;
>> + data.old_refs = migration_data->old_refs;
>> + data.transaction = migration_data->transaction;
>> + data.errbuf = migration_data->errbuf;
>> + data.sb = &migration_data->sb;
>
> The `index` variable isn't getting initialized here anymore, so its
> value is essenitally random. I'd propose to use designated initializers
> for `data` to fix this:
>
> struct reflog_migration_data data = {
> .refname = refname,
> .old_refs = migration_data->old_refs,
> .transaction = migration_data->transaction,
> .errbuf = migration_data->errbuf,
> .sb = &migration_data->sb,
> };
GOod. As long as it is sensible to null-initialize the relevant
field and all the other fields not mentioned above, that certainly
would give us more predicitable behaviour ;-). I do not offhand
know if 0 is the right value to initialize the .index member with,
though; didn't you two recently had an exchange about starting with
0 or 1 or something?
Thanks.
