From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:6f8:1178:4:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1UCb3t-00023T-WA for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 19:28:39 +0000 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 20:28:35 +0100 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20130304192835.GH1906@pengutronix.de> References: <1362412809-23253-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <20130304190529.GJ23022@game.jcrosoft.org> <20130304191617.GG1906@pengutronix.de> <20130304192548.GB911@x61s.8.8.8.8> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130304192548.GB911@x61s.8.8.8.8> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: ehci: initialize ehci_data To: Alexander Aring Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 08:25:49PM +0100, Alexander Aring wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 08:16:17PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 08:05:29PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > On 17:00 Mon 04 Mar , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > > Without it fields of ehci_data may be unitialized and the driver > > > > crashes. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer > > > > --- > > > > drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c > > > > index 0c789e4..7c389aa 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-hcd.c > > > > @@ -892,7 +892,7 @@ int ehci_register(struct device_d *dev, struct ehci_data *data) > > > > > > > > static int ehci_probe(struct device_d *dev) > > > > { > > > > - struct ehci_data data; > > > > + struct ehci_data data = {}; > > > > > > I'll prefer a memset > > > > Then you'll happy to hear that this is what the compiler makes from it > > anyway. > > > I think memset use a unnecessary function call. Is that right? No, the result will be the same. As said, gcc will call memset anyway, even when you implicitly initialize a struct with '= {}'. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox