[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210706091821.7a5c2ce8@hermes.local>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:18:21 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander.mikhalitsyn@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander@...alicyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 iproute2] ip route: ignore ENOENT during save if
RT_TABLE_MAIN is being dumped
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 18:44:15 +0300
Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander.mikhalitsyn@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 08:34:07 -0700
> Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:51:15 +0300
> > Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander.mikhalitsyn@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > + const struct rtnl_dump_filter_arg a[2] = {
> > > + { .filter = filter, .arg1 = arg1,
> > > + .errhndlr = errhndlr, .arg2 = arg2, .nc_flags = nc_flags, },
> > > + { .filter = NULL, .arg1 = NULL,
> > > + .errhndlr = NULL, .arg2 = NULL, .nc_flags = 0, },
> > > };
> >
> > I am OK with this as is. But you don't need to add initializers for fields
> > that are 0/NULL (at least in C).
>
> Sure, I've made such explicit initializations just because in original
> rtnl_dump_filter_nc() we already have them.
>
> Do I need to resend with fixed initializations? ;)
Not worth it
Powered by blists - more mailing lists