netdev - Re: [PATCH] pci: Use designated initialization in PCI

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 01 Apr 2014 02:08:06 +0400
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, bhelgaas@...gle.com
CC:	Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci: Use designated initialization in PCI_VDEVICE

Hello.

On 04/01/2014 01:58 AM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:

> From: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>

> By using designated initialization in PCI_VDEVICE, like other
> similar macros, many "missing initializer" warnings that appear
> when compiling with W=2 can be silenced.

> Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
> Tested-by: Phil Schmitt <phillip.j.schmitt@...el.com>
> Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>
> Tested-by: Kavindya Deegala <kavindya.s.deegala@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> ---
>   include/linux/pci.h | 10 +++++-----
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

> diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
> index fb57c89..49455f9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
[...]
> @@ -689,9 +689,9 @@ struct pci_driver {
>    * private data.
>    */
>
> -#define PCI_VDEVICE(vendor, device)		\
> -	PCI_VENDOR_ID_##vendor, (device),	\
> -	PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0
> +#define PCI_VDEVICE(vend, dev) \
> +	.vendor = PCI_VENDOR_ID_##vend, .device = (dev), \
> +	.subvendor = PCI_ANY_ID, .subdevice = PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0

    Initializing the fields to 0 is pointless, as 0 is what should be put into 
them anyway by the compiler. Also, it doesn't look right when you mix 
designated and anonymous initializers.

WBR, Sergei

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html