On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:56:28PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 8/5/22 21:02, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Heh, so this amusingly has my review, but I'd rather omit this patch and leave > > the initialization with the pile of other code that initializes fields for which > > zero-initialization is insufficient/incorrect. > > > > Any objections to dropping this? > > Yeah, I was going to say the same. The points before and after this patch > are far enough that I'm a bit more confident leaving it out. Sounds reasonable to me. To be fair, I mostly threw this patch at the end to poke fun at the original mistake :) -- Thanks, Oliver
