Il 31/07/2014 18:35, Rustad, Mark D ha scritto:
> I agree it is ugly. .name = NULL would be enough to silence it. Would
> that be better? At the moment I am thinking of this as a test case
> for the other 1000 { } and {0} initializers in the kernel that are
> throwing warnings. I know we both agree
On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:50 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/07/2014 23:18, Mark D Rustad ha scritto:
>> Resolve some missing-initializers warnings that appear in W=2
>> builds. They are resolved by adding the name as a parameter to
>> the macros and having the macro generate all four fields of the
Il 30/07/2014 23:18, Mark D Rustad ha scritto:
> Resolve some missing-initializers warnings that appear in W=2
> builds. They are resolved by adding the name as a parameter to
> the macros and having the macro generate all four fields of the
> structure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad
> Signed-of
Resolve some missing-initializers warnings that appear in W=2
builds. They are resolved by adding the name as a parameter to
the macros and having the macro generate all four fields of the
structure.
Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad
Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher
---
V2: Change macro to supply all four
