On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:26:49 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:16:47AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:43:45 +0100
> > Juri Lelli <juri.le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c b/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c
> > > index f76f8d6..ad94604 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c
> > > @@ -1023,16 +1023,16 @@ trace_selftest_startup_nop(struct tracer *trace,
> > > struct trace_array *tr)
> > > static int trace_wakeup_test_thread(void *data)
> > > {
> > > /* Make this a -deadline thread */
> > > - struct sched_param2 paramx = {
> > > + static const struct sched_param2 param = {
> > > .sched_priority = 0,
> > > + .sched_flags = 0,
> > > .sched_runtime = 100000ULL,
> > > .sched_deadline = 10000000ULL,
> > > .sched_period = 10000000ULL
> > > - .sched_flags = 0
> >
> > Assigning structures like this, you don't need to set the zero fields.
> > all fields not explicitly stated, are set to zero.
>
> Only because its static. Otherwise unnamed members have indeterminate
> value after initialization.
Hmm, I wonder if there's a gcc extension that guarantees it. Because I
could have sworn I've seen initialization of structures that expected
zero'd behavior elsewhere in the kernel.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
