lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ntfs: remove redundant assignments
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 09:21:46AM +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 22:10 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> >This is not. memset(0) is not the same as = NULL IMO. I don't care if
> >the compiler thinks it is the same. NULL does not have to be 0 so I
> >prefer to initialize pointers explicitly to NULL. Even more so since this
> >code is not performance critical at all so I prefer clarity here.
>
> I kind of figured out you were doing it on purpose. The fact is, NULL is
> zero on _all_ Linux architectures. If it weren't, we'd have a lot of broken
> code. Let me play the devils advocate here: why do you memset() (now
> kcalloc()) in the first place?

Oh, come on...

ictx = kmalloc(sizeof(ntfs_index_context), GFP_NOFS);
if (ictx)
*ictx = (ntfs_index_context){.idx_ni = idx_ni};
return ictx;
and be done with that. Let compiler do its job. And yes, that *will*
give properly initialized pointers even for weird platforms. Not that
we had the slightest chance of porting to any of them...

> There's a simple reason why I don't like explicit assignments: it's way too
> easy to forget to initialize something.

So use the proper constructs. Variant above is guaranteed to do the right
thing on any C99 compiler, provided that kmalloc() returns NULL or pointer
to object sufficiently large and properly aligned for ntfs_index_context.
All missing fields will be initialized the same way they would for initializer
of a static object.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-05-26 09:10    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans