On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 05:25:21PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2020, Aditya Swarup <aditya.swa...@intel.com> wrote:
> > Static code analysis tool identified struct lrc_timestamp data as being
> > uninitialized and then data.ce[] is being checked for NULL/negative
> > value in the error path. Initializing data variable fixes the issue.
> >
> > Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.ro...@intel.com>
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Signed-off-by: Aditya Swarup <aditya.swa...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c
> > index ccf9debacd90..9b75b3c77a5b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c
> > @@ -4725,7 +4725,7 @@ static int live_lrc_timestamp(void *arg)
> > {
> > struct intel_gt *gt = arg;
> > enum intel_engine_id id;
> > - struct lrc_timestamp data;
> > + struct lrc_timestamp data = { 0 };
>
> {} is preferred over {0}.
Is there a reference for this (e.g., in the kernel coding style)? I
thought this came up a couple years ago and the consensus was the other
way, although I could be misremembering. Unless it's changed in a
recent standard, I think {} is only legal in C++, so using it in C code
is a gcc-ism?
Matt
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
> > const u32 poison[] = {
> > 0,
> > S32_MAX,
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Matt Roper
Graphics Software Engineer
VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
Intel Corporation
(916) 356-2795
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
