On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 09:47:34AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 9:11 AM Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > __must_init might be smaller? > > That sounds fine too. I like that it says that something *has* to be > done (like the original name did). Hmm... On the other hand, I guess > "must" could sound like one has to initialize the field "somehow", > i.e. writing: > > struct S s = {}; > > definitely initializes it, yet the compiler would warn. Would > "explicit" hint a bit more at the fact that one has to actually > "write" the field, even if it may have been initialized anyway?
"explicit" is a description, "must" is an action that tells the reader what they have to do, so maybe "must" is better? Anyway, I don't care, naming is hard, either is fine with me, I'll let the authors of the patch here pick what they want :) thanks, greg k-h
