[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96bfa918-a7c6-4d65-b941-e69f8aaba1a9@csgroup.eu>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:10:43 +0000
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, "keescook@...omium.org"
<keescook@...omium.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"debug@...osinc.com" <debug@...osinc.com>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org"
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-sh@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-csky@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-csky@...r.kernel.org>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>, "loongarch@...ts.linux.dev"
<loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Liam.Howlett@...cle.com" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, "hpa@...or.com"
<hpa@...or.com>, "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-mips@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>, "sparclinux@...r.kernel.org"
<sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>, "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] mm: Initialize struct vm_unmapped_area_info
Le 28/02/2024 à 18:01, Edgecombe, Rick P a écrit :
> On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 13:22 +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> Any preference? Or maybe am I missing your point and talking
>>> nonsense?
>>>
>>
>> So my preference would go to the addition of:
>>
>> info.new_field = 0;
>>
>> But that's very minor and if you think it is easier to manage and
>> maintain by performing {} initialisation at declaration, lets go for
>> that.
>
> Appreciate the clarification and help getting this right. I'm thinking
> Kees' and now Kirill's point about this patch resulting in unnecessary
> manual zero initialization of the structs is probably something that
> needs to be addressed.
>
> If I created a bunch of patches to change each call site, I think the
> the best is probably to do the designated field zero initialization
> way.
>
> But I can do something for powerpc special if you want. I'll first try
> with powerpc matching the others, and if it seems objectionable, please
> let me know.
>
My comments were generic, it was not powerpc oriented. Please keep
powerpc as similar as possible with others.
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists