On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 08:25:49PM +0100, Alexander Aring wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 08:16:17PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 08:05:29PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > On 17:00 Mon 04 Mar , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > > Without it fields of ehci_data may be unitialized and the driver
> > > > crashes.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c
> > > > index 0c789e4..7c389aa 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c
> > > > @@ -892,7 +892,7 @@ int ehci_register(struct device_d *dev, struct ehci_data *data)
> > > >
> > > > static int ehci_probe(struct device_d *dev)
> > > > {
> > > > - struct ehci_data data;
> > > > + struct ehci_data data = {};
> > >
> > > I'll prefer a memset
> >
> > Then you'll happy to hear that this is what the compiler makes from it
> > anyway.
> >
> I think memset use a unnecessary function call. Is that right?
No, the result will be the same. As said, gcc will call memset anyway,
even when you implicitly initialize a struct with '= {}'.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
