Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:15:42 +0100 | | From | Johannes Weiner <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] vmscan: initialize sc->nr_reclaimed properly take2 |
| |
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:06:37PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:58:04 +0900 (JST) > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -1665,6 +1665,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z > > gfp_t gfp_mask) > > { > > struct scan_control sc = { > > + .nr_reclaimed = 0, > > .gfp_mask = gfp_mask, > > .may_writepage = !laptop_mode, > > .swap_cluster_max = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, > > @@ -1686,6 +1687,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pag > > unsigned int swappiness) > > { > > struct scan_control sc = { > > + .nr_reclaimed = 0, > > .may_writepage = !laptop_mode, > > .may_swap = 1, > > .swap_cluster_max = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, > > @@ -2245,6 +2247,7 @@ static int __zone_reclaim(struct zone *z > > struct reclaim_state reclaim_state; > > int priority; > > struct scan_control sc = { > > + .nr_reclaimed = 0, > > .may_writepage = !!(zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_WRITE), > > .may_swap = !!(zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_SWAP), > > .swap_cluster_max = max_t(unsigned long, nr_pages, > > Confused. The compiler already initialises any unmentioned fields to zero, > so this patch has no effect.
Oh, nice, I was actually testing the wrong thing!
struct foo foo;
wouldn't do that. But
struct foo foo = { .a = 5 }; actually would initialize foo.b = 0.
Sorry. Please ignore this patch and the other one regarding the explicit initialization of sc.order. :(
Hannes
|  |