On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 01:02:24PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > No significant changes, just silence a couple of sparse errors.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ag_resv.h | 2 +-
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ag_resv.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ag_resv.h
> > index 4619b554ee90..dc953fc84b2f 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ag_resv.h
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ag_resv.h
> > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ xfs_ag_resv_rmapbt_alloc(
> > struct xfs_mount *mp,
> > xfs_agnumber_t agno)
> > {
> > - struct xfs_alloc_arg args = {0};
> > + struct xfs_alloc_arg args = { NULL };
>
> Could you use args = {} instead.
>
> There was a bunch of conversions for such initializes with:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/723997/
>
I honestly don't see a reason to use these annotations here.
> But regardless, NULL adds no information for compiler.
args = { NULL }; just looks more clear to me than
args = {};
and anyway, the idea here was just to shut up sparse complains, not to do
anything better than args = {0} or pass any extra information to the compiler.
>
> Thanks,
> Amir.
--
Carlos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
