On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 08:29:56AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/06/2016 05:59 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:18:08PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > Detected by sparse.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Eli Cohen <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c
> > > index 32b09f059c84..abd200e3e299 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c
> > > @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ static int mlx5_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this,
> > >
> > > if ((upper == ndev || (!upper && ndev == ibdev->roce.netdev))
> > > && ibdev->ib_active) {
> > > - struct ib_event ibev = {0};
> > > + struct ib_event ibev = { NULL };
> >
> > I afraid that it is sparse anomality and because NULL==0, the ibev.event
> > will be initialized to zero, but it is a matter of time when the sparse
> > will complain about wrong initialization again.
>
> Hello Leon,
>
> The first member of struct ib_event is a pointer so I think the sparse
> complaint is correct.
Yes, sparse didn't iterate all fields of this struct. This is why I
called it "sparse anomality".
> Anyway, how about one of the following two
> alternatives:
> * Change {0} into { }.
Yes, please.
Thanks
> * Use memset() instead of an initializer.
>
> Bart.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
