On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 08:16:17AM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Leon,
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 09:50:41AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > + memset(&send_info, 0, sizeof(send_info));
> >
> > This can be written simpler.
> > struct switchdev_notifier_fdb_info send_info = {};
> >
> > In all places.
>
> Because the structure contains a sub-structure, I believe that a
> compound literal initializer would require additional braces for the
> initialization of its sub-objects too. At least I know that expressions
> like that have attracted the attention of clang people in the past:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20190506202447.30907-1-natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx/
> So I went for the 'unambiguous' path.
There's a difference between:
struct foo bar = { 0 };
and
struct foo bar = { };
The former tells the compiler that you wish to set the first member of
struct foo, which will be an integer type, to zero. The latter is an
empty initialiser where all members and sub-members of the structure
default to a zero value.
You should have no problem with the latter. You will encounter problems
with the former if the first member of struct foo is not an integer
type.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
