Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262366AbUKZT0G (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:26:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261227AbUKZTVq (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:21:46 -0500 Received: from zeus.kernel.org ([204.152.189.113]:62401 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262298AbUKZTU0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:20:26 -0500 Message-ID: <41A7483F.9010302@pobox.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:14:07 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040922 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Juhl CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: Any reason why we don't initialize all members of struct Xgt_desc_struct in doublefault.c ? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 819 Lines: 28 Jesper Juhl wrote: > Yes, this is nitpicking, but I just can't leave small corners like this > unpolished ;) > > in arch/i386/kernel/doublefault.c you will find this (line 20) : > > struct Xgt_desc_struct gdt_desc = {0, 0}; > > but, struct Xgt_desc_struct has 3 members, > > struct Xgt_desc_struct { > unsigned short size; > unsigned long address __attribute__((packed)); > unsigned short pad; > } __attribute__ ((packed)); > > so why only initialize two of them explicitly? 'pad' is a dummy variable... nobody cares about its value. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/