On 2014/4/22 15:01, Jianyu Zhan wrote: > Hi, hillf, > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Hillf Danton <dhillf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> But other fields still missed, if any. Fair? > > yep, it is not fair. > > Sure for this global variable struct, if not initailized, its all > fields will be initialized > to 0 or null(depending on its type). The point here is no to deprive > the rights of > compiler/linker of doing this initialization, it is mainly for > documentation reason. > Actually this field's value would affect how ->css_alloc should implemented. > > Concretely, if early_init is nonzero, then ->css_alloc *must not* call kzalloc, > because in cgroup implementation, ->css_alloc will be called earlier before > mm_init(). > > I don't think that the value of one field(early_init) has a so subtle > restrition on the > another field(css_alloc) is a good thing, but since it is there, > docment it should > be needed. > I don't see how things can be improved by initializing it to 0 explicitly, if anything needs to be improved. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
