On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > * Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > >> +int put_compat_rusage_time64(const struct __kernel_rusage *r, >> + struct compat_rusage_time64 __user *ru) >> +{ >> + struct compat_rusage_time64 r32; >> + memset(&r32, 0, sizeof(r32)); >> + r32.ru_utime.tv_sec = r->ru_utime.tv_sec; >> + r32.ru_utime.tv_usec = r->ru_utime.tv_usec; >> + r32.ru_stime.tv_sec = r->ru_stime.tv_sec; >> + r32.ru_stime.tv_usec = r->ru_stime.tv_usec; >> + r32.ru_maxrss = r->ru_maxrss; >> + r32.ru_ixrss = r->ru_ixrss; >> + r32.ru_idrss = r->ru_idrss; >> + r32.ru_isrss = r->ru_isrss; >> + r32.ru_minflt = r->ru_minflt; >> + r32.ru_majflt = r->ru_majflt; >> + r32.ru_nswap = r->ru_nswap; >> + r32.ru_inblock = r->ru_inblock; >> + r32.ru_oublock = r->ru_oublock; >> + r32.ru_msgsnd = r->ru_msgsnd; >> + r32.ru_msgrcv = r->ru_msgrcv; >> + r32.ru_nsignals = r->ru_nsignals; >> + r32.ru_nvcsw = r->ru_nvcsw; >> + r32.ru_nivcsw = r->ru_nivcsw; > > Could you please vertically align the right side of the initialization as > well? > Much easier to check at a glance. ...
> Which tabulated form made me notice the info.cause / si_code asymmetry - and a > brief check of the source shows that it's correct. No way would I have > noticed it > in the jumbled up form above, so I think aligning such mass-initializations > makes > sense. Sure, no problem. Do you have an opinion on the question I raised in the first patch [1], i.e. whether we actually want this to be done this way in the kernel, or one of the other approaches I described there? Thanks for taking a look here already! Arnd [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10352507/ _______________________________________________ Y2038 mailing list Y2038@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038