On 7/28/21 2:14 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 10:59:22AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c | 5 +-- include/uapi/linux/omap3isp.h | 44 +++++++++++++++++------ 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c index 5b9b57f4d9bf..ea8222fed38e 100644 --- a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c +++ b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ int omap3isp_stat_request_statistics(struct ispstat *stat, int omap3isp_stat_request_statistics_time32(struct ispstat *stat, struct omap3isp_stat_data_time32 *data) { - struct omap3isp_stat_data data64; + struct omap3isp_stat_data data64 = { };Should this be { 0 } ? We've seen patches trying to switch from { 0 } to { } but the answer was that { 0 } is supposed to be used, http://www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/random/initialise.html (from https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fbddb15a-6e46-3f21-23ba-b18f66e3448a@xxxxxxxx/)In the kernel we don't care about portability so much. Use the = { } GCC extension. If the first member of the struct is a pointer then Sparse will complain about = { 0 }.
+1 for { }. BTW, my understanding is that neither the C standard nor the C++ standard guarantee anything about initialization of padding bytes nor about the initialization of unnamed bitfields for stack variables when using aggregate initialization.
Bart.
