On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 08/30/10 17:43, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > On 08/30/2010 10:35 AM, jes.soren...@redhat.com wrote:
> >> From: Jes Sorensen<jes.soren...@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jes Sorensen<jes.soren...@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> linux-aio.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/linux-aio.c b/linux-aio.c
> >> index 68f4b3d..3240996 100644
> >> --- a/linux-aio.c
> >> +++ b/linux-aio.c
> >> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static void qemu_laio_completion_cb(void *opaque)
> >> struct io_event events[MAX_EVENTS];
> >> uint64_t val;
> >> ssize_t ret;
> >> - struct timespec ts = { 0 };
> >> + struct timespec ts = { 0, 0 };
> >>
> >
> > I don't like these. What's wrong with { } or { 0 }? Implicit zeroing
> > of members is a critical feature of structure initialization so if there
> > is something wrong with this, it's important to know why because
> > otherwise we've got a massive amount of broken code.
>
> The specific case above is really inconsistent. Either do {} or {0, 0},
> doing just {0} means it is initializing just one element in the struct.
> That is broken IMHO.
>
No it doesn't mean that. In this particular case all the fields of ts
will be set to zero, for specific wording look at 6.7.9#21
--
mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
