On 7/20/20 1:56 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: > 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?
Sure, I'm definitely not hard set on this patch :) > > Thomas > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
