Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Dec 2016 19:56:37 +0000 | From | Andrey Utkin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] solo6x10: use designated initializers |
| |
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 05:05:36PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > Prepare to mark sensitive kernel structures for randomization by making > sure they're using designated initializers. These were identified during > allyesconfig builds of x86, arm, and arm64, with most initializer fixes > extracted from grsecurity.
Ok I've reviewed all the patchset, googled a bit and now I see what's going on.
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > --- > drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-g723.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-g723.c b/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-g723.c > index 6a35107aca25..36e93540bb49 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-g723.c > +++ b/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-g723.c > @@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ static int solo_snd_pcm_init(struct solo_dev *solo_dev) > > int solo_g723_init(struct solo_dev *solo_dev) > { > - static struct snd_device_ops ops = { NULL }; > + static struct snd_device_ops ops = { };
I'm not that keen on syntax subtleties, but... * Empty initializer is not quite "designated" as I can judge. * From brief googling I see that empty initializer is not valid in some C standards.
Since `ops` is static, what about this? For the variant given below, you have my signoff.
> --- a/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-g723.c > +++ b/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-g723.c > @@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ static int solo_snd_pcm_init(struct solo_dev *solo_dev) > > int solo_g723_init(struct solo_dev *solo_dev) > { > - static struct snd_device_ops ops = { NULL }; > + static struct snd_device_ops ops;
| |