> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 8:22 AM, James Simmons
> >> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> >> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock
> >> *req, __u64 *flags,
> >> int added = (mode == LCK_NL);
> >> int overlaps = 0;
> >> int splitted = 0;
> >> - const struct ldlm_callback_suite null_cbs = { NULL };
> >> + const struct ldlm_callback_suite null_cbs = { };
> >>
> >> CDEBUG(D_DLMTRACE,
> >> "flags %#llx owner %llu pid %u mode %u start %llu end %llu\n",
> >
> > Nak. Filling null_cbs with random data is a bad idea. If you look at
> > ldlm_lock_create() where this is used you have
> >
> > if (cbs) {
> > lock->l_blocking_ast = cbs->lcs_blocking;
> > lock->l_completion_ast = cbs->lcs_completion;
> > lock->l_glimpse_ast = cbs->lcs_glimpse;
> > }
> >
> > Having lock->l_* point to random addresses is a bad idea.
> > What really needs to be done is proper initialization of that
> > structure. A bunch of patches will be coming to address this.
>
> I'm not understanding the effect of the original difference. If you
> specify any initializer, then all fields not specified are filled with
> zero bits. Any pointers are, perforce, NULL. That should make both "{
> NULL }" and "{}" equivalent. Maybe a worthwhile change would be to:
>
> static const struct ldlm_callback_suite null_cbs;
I perfer this as well.
> then it is not even necessary to specify an initializer.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
