| Message ID | 1302726792-4733-1-git-send-email-andreiw@motorola.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Andrei, On Wed, Apr 13 2011, Andrei Warkentin wrote: > mmc_cmd_app did not zero out mmc_command on stack. > > Signed-off-by: Andrei Warkentin <andreiw@motorola.com> > --- > drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c b/drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c > index 76af349..71fdb07 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c > @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ static int mmc_app_cmd(struct mmc_host *host, struct mmc_card *card) > BUG_ON(!host); > BUG_ON(card && (card->host != host)); > > + memset(&cmd, 0, sizeof(struct mmc_command)); > + > cmd.opcode = MMC_APP_CMD; > > if (card) { Thanks, pushed to mmc-next for .40. I found a few more which I'm about to post. - Chris.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Andrei Warkentin wrote: > mmc_cmd_app did not zero out mmc_command on stack. > > Signed-off-by: Andrei Warkentin <andreiw@motorola.com> > --- > drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c b/drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c > index 76af349..71fdb07 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c > @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ static int mmc_app_cmd(struct mmc_host *host, struct mmc_card *card) > BUG_ON(!host); > BUG_ON(card && (card->host != host)); > > + memset(&cmd, 0, sizeof(struct mmc_command)); > + > cmd.opcode = MMC_APP_CMD; > > if (card) { > -- Out of curiosity, why is: memset(&cmd, 0, sizeof(struct mmc_command)); preferred over: struct mmc_command cmd = {0}; John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi, On Wed, Apr 13 2011, John Calixto wrote: > Out of curiosity, why is: > > memset(&cmd, 0, sizeof(struct mmc_command)); > > preferred over: > > struct mmc_command cmd = {0}; Thanks for the question. I asked around, the verdict seems to be that it *isn't* preferred, that the compiler can actually (theoretically) do better with the zero initializer, and the memsets are probably just holdover from when dynamic initialization of aggregates wasn't available in C. An even stronger benefit of the zero initializer is, of course, that you can do a single-line grep to find out whether someone forgot to initialize any of them. (And it's a line shorter, too.) So, now I'm thinking about a patch to convert all of our uses of memset(.., 0, struct ..) over to { 0 } initializers. Yell if anyone has strong opinions. Thanks, - Chris.
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c b/drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c index 76af349..71fdb07 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ static int mmc_app_cmd(struct mmc_host *host, struct mmc_card *card) BUG_ON(!host); BUG_ON(card && (card->host != host)); + memset(&cmd, 0, sizeof(struct mmc_command)); + cmd.opcode = MMC_APP_CMD; if (card) {
mmc_cmd_app did not zero out mmc_command on stack. Signed-off-by: Andrei Warkentin <andreiw@motorola.com> --- drivers/mmc/core/sd_ops.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)