On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, 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.
>
Apart from gcc complaining about fields not being initialized explicitly
there's nothing wrong with it.
--
mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
