On 08/30/10 17:43, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 08/30/2010 10:35 AM, jes.soren...@redhat.com wrote:
>> From: Jes Sorensen<jes.soren...@redhat.com>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jes Sorensen<jes.soren...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> linux-aio.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/linux-aio.c b/linux-aio.c
>> index 68f4b3d..3240996 100644
>> --- a/linux-aio.c
>> +++ b/linux-aio.c
>> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static void qemu_laio_completion_cb(void *opaque)
>> struct io_event events[MAX_EVENTS];
>> uint64_t val;
>> ssize_t ret;
>> - struct timespec ts = { 0 };
>> + struct timespec ts = { 0, 0 };
>>
>
> I don't like these. What's wrong with { } or { 0 }? Implicit zeroing
> of members is a critical feature of structure initialization so if there
> is something wrong with this, it's important to know why because
> otherwise we've got a massive amount of broken code.
The specific case above is really inconsistent. Either do {} or {0, 0},
doing just {0} means it is initializing just one element in the struct.
That is broken IMHO.
Cheers,
Jes
