On Tue, 2016-02-09 at 04:27 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 08.02.16 at 14:19, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > @@ -1995,13 +1996,11 @@ static void csched_tick_resume(const struct
> > scheduler *ops, unsigned int cpu)
> > - now % MICROSECS(prv->tick_period_us) );
> > }
> >
> > -static struct csched_private _csched_priv;
> > -
> > static const struct scheduler sched_credit_def = {
> > .name = "SMP Credit Scheduler",
> > .opt_name = "credit",
> > .sched_id = XEN_SCHEDULER_CREDIT,
> > - .sched_data = &_csched_priv,
> > + .sched_data = NULL,
>
> You're maintainer of this code, so you know whether you really
> want these NULL initializers, but the look pretty pointless to me.
>
Yes, I've also been unsure about what to do here.The reason why I put them there is that, when looking at the code, it is important to be able to quickly get the idea of where sched_data points, at any given time. Therefore, being a little bit more verbose than necessary would be, in this case, actually helpful. Anyway, this is not a super strong opinion, so I can be talked into getting rid of them, if others think we better don't have them too. Thanks and Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
