On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 September 2016 at 14:33, <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote: > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fb.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fb.c >> @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ const struct msm_format *msm_framebuffer_format(struct >> drm_framebuffer *fb) >> struct drm_framebuffer *msm_framebuffer_create(struct drm_device *dev, >> struct drm_file *file, const struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 >> *mode_cmd) >> { >> - struct drm_gem_object *bos[4] = {0}; >> + struct drm_gem_object *bos[4] = {}; > Fwiw I was reminded using empty initializers isn't standard C [1].
Well, meh, we're not doing -std=c11 -pedantic. Arguably {} is neater. I guess the commit message lacks the sparse warning about using plain integer 0 as NULL pointer. BR, Jani. > > Regards, > Emil > > [1] > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17589533/is-an-empty-initializer-list-valid-c-code > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center