On 15/07/2020 11.40, Janosch Frank wrote: > Sometimes a memset is nicer to read than multiple struct->data = 0; > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <fran...@linux.ibm.com> > Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.ibm.com> > --- > pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c | 7 ++----- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c > index e8f2846740..0543334ed4 100644 > --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c > +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/dasd-ipl.c > @@ -167,16 +167,13 @@ static void ipl1_fixup(void) > ccwSeek->cda = ptr2u32(seekData); > ccwSeek->chain = 1; > ccwSeek->count = sizeof(*seekData); > - seekData->reserved = 0x00; > - seekData->cyl = 0x00; > - seekData->head = 0x00; > + memset(seekData, 0, sizeof(*seekData));
Sounds ok for me if the whole struct gets cleared (though I wonder whether this is really worth the effort)... > ccwSearchID->cmd_code = CCW_CMD_DASD_SEARCH_ID_EQ; > ccwSearchID->cda = ptr2u32(searchData); > ccwSearchID->chain = 1; > ccwSearchID->count = sizeof(*searchData); > - searchData->cyl = 0; > - searchData->head = 0; > + memset(searchData, 0, sizeof(*searchData)); > searchData->record = 2; ... but that looks rather worse to me, and the generated code will likely also be slightly worse (since ->record is cleared first and then set to 2 again). Maybe rather drop this patch? Thomas
