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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:29:58 +0200 From: Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> To: Jakub Sitnicki <jkbs@...hat.com> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemming@...cade.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>, Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>, Julien Floret <julien.floret@...nd.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [iproute PATCH v2 2/7] Use C99 style initializers everywhere Hi Jakub, On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:12:14AM +0200, Jakub Sitnicki wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 06:18 PM CEST, Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> wrote: > > This big patch was compiled by vimgrepping for memset calls and changing > > to C99 initializer if applicable. One notable exception is the > > initialization of union bpf_attr in tc/tc_bpf.c: changing it would break > > for older gcc versions (at least <=3.4.6). > > > > Calls to memset for struct rtattr pointer fields for parse_rtattr*() > > were just dropped since they are not needed. > > > > The changes here allowed the compiler to discover some unused variables, > > so get rid of them, too. > > > > Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> > > --- > > [...] > > > diff --git a/bridge/fdb.c b/bridge/fdb.c > > index be849f980a802..a59d6a9c13018 100644 > > --- a/bridge/fdb.c > > +++ b/bridge/fdb.c > > @@ -177,16 +177,15 @@ static int fdb_show(int argc, char **argv) > > struct nlmsghdr n; > > struct ifinfomsg ifm; > > char buf[256]; > > - } req; > > + } req = { > > + .n.nlmsg_len = NLMSG_LENGTH(sizeof(struct ifinfomsg)), > > + .ifm.ifi_family = PF_BRIDGE > > + }; > > > > A comma is allowed after a list of initializers (IOW, after the last > initializer). Having it would make for smaller/cleaner diffs in the > future if new structure members get added and need to be initialized. Good point! I knew about that already, but that's good reasoning why one would actually want to do that intentionally. Thanks, Phil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists