Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753367AbdHOQbu (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:31:50 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58668 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752574AbdHOQbs (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:31:48 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com D5233C04D292 Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com D5233C04D292 Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:31:41 -0300 From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner To: Eric Dumazet Cc: David Miller , hideaki.yoshifuji@miraclelinux.com, glider@google.com, dvyukov@google.com, kcc@google.com, edumazet@google.com, lucien.xin@gmail.com, vyasevich@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sctp: fully initialize the IPv6 address in sctp_v6_to_addr() Message-ID: <20170815163141.GD18688@localhost.localdomain> References: <20170814184304.82747-1-glider@google.com> <20170815015814.GB18688@localhost.localdomain> <20170814.194051.1408830683580606508.davem@davemloft.net> <20170815150557.GC18688@localhost.localdomain> <1502811469.4936.84.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1502811469.4936.84.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 16:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 530 Lines: 20 On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 08:37:49AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 12:05 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > > > Ok, but I should see a difference in the generated code, right? > > Depends on the compiler. Have you tried older versions ? > This was with gcc 6.4.1, fc25 standard. Only tested with it and didn't check clang either. > One argument is that following struct member definition eases code > review. > > (It is easier to catch a field init is missing) And a good one, yes. Thanks, Marcelo