>>>>> Static structs are initialized with zeros for unspecified fields. >>>>> So there is no advantage to explicitly initialize .remove with NULL >>>>> and the assignment can be dropped without side effects. … > Removing = 0 assignments should be carefully reviewed. I skimmed the > changes to drivers/pwm and would oppose to both changes. How does this development view fit to information from the patch description? > Even for my patch I wasn't sure if it's a good idea and talked to Mark before > sending it. Would you get concerned that null pointers would eventually be represented by non-zero values on any execution platform? * https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/nullptr * https://c-faq.com/null/machexamp.html * https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2759845/why-is-address-zero-used-for-the-null-pointer Regards, Markus
