Hello, On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 13:23, Zhao Liu <zhao1....@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Indeed, as you say, these items are initialized to 0 by default. > > I think, however, that the initialization is so far away from where the > smp is currently parsed that one can't easily confirm it (thanks for > your confirmation!). > > From a code readability view, the fact that we're explicitly > initializing to 0 again here brings little overhead, but makes the code > more readable as well as easier to maintain. I think the small redundancy > here is worth it. > > Also, in other use cases people always relies on fields marked by has_*, > and there is no (or less?) precedent for direct access to places where > has_* is not set. I understand that this is also a habit, i.e., fields > with a has_* of False by default are unreliable and avoid going directly > to them.
* Ummn...okay. (I'm not fully convinced, but that's fine, I'm okay to go with you on this.) Thank you. --- - Prasad
