On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:39:10 -0700 [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Jeff Kirsher <[email protected]> writes: > > > From: Mark Rustad <[email protected]> > > > > Resolve missing-field-initializers warnings in W=2 builds by > > using designated initialization. > > ick. No. > > That gcc warning makes no sense. In this case heeding it makes the code > significantly uglier and significantly more confusing. > Yeah, it's not pretty. > > --- a/kernel/sysctl.c > > +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c > > @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static struct ctl_table sysctl_base_table[] = { > > .mode = 0555, > > .child = dev_table, > > }, > > - { } > > + { .procname = NULL } > > }; We use { } to mean "all zero" in 12 squillion places. Do they all warn or is there something special about this site? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
