> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 08:47:50AM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> > 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.
>
> They are equivalent, yes, but people want to use a GCC plugin that randomizes
> struct layouts for internal structures and the plugin doesn't work when you
> use
> struct ordering to initialize the struct. The plugin requires that you use
> designated intializers.
"{ NULL }" is valid ISO C, but unfortunately "{}" is not.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
