* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:i definitely agree and do that for all code i write. But if someone does item by item initialization for some crazy performance reason (networking folks tend to have such constructs), it should be done i think how i've done it in the patch: by systematically listing _every_ field in the structure, in the same order, and indicating it clearly when it is not initialized and why. and there it already shows that we do not initialize a few other members that could cause problems later on: + rq->data_len = 0; + /* rq->sense_len */ + rq->data = NULL; + rq->sense = NULL; why is sense_len not initialized - while data_len is? In any case, these days the memclear instructions are dirt cheap and we should just always initialize everything to zero by default, especially if it's almost all zero-initialized anyway. Ingo --
| David Miller | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Heiko Carstens | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Jan Engelhardt | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
