Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 20:13:03 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
        Chris Redpath <chrid.redpath@arm.com>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/uclamp: Fix initialization of strut uclamp_rq
Message-ID: <20200619181303.GD576888@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200618195525.7889-1-qais.yousef@arm.com>
 <20200618195525.7889-2-qais.yousef@arm.com>
 <20200619173055.GA576888@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200619173944.blwuimtuqmcxlj2v@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200619173944.blwuimtuqmcxlj2v@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 06:39:44PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 06/19/20 19:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 08:55:24PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > 
> > > +	for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id) {
> > > +		memset(uc_rq[clamp_id].bucket,
> > > +		       0,
> > > +		       sizeof(struct uclamp_bucket)*UCLAMP_BUCKETS);
> > > +
> > > +		uc_rq[clamp_id].value = uclamp_none(clamp_id);
> > 
> > I think you can replace all that with:
> > 
> > 		*uc_rq = (struct uclamp_rq){
> > 			.value = uclamp_none(clamp_id),
> > 		};
> > 
> > it's shorter and is free or weird line-breaks :-)
> 
> Sure. I just sent v2 so that people will be encouraged to run tests hopefully.
> But will fix in v3.
> 
> Do we actually need to 0 out anything here? Shouldn't the runqueues all be in
> BSS which gets initialized to 0 by default at boot?
> 
> Maybe better stay explicit..

C99 named initializer (as used here) explicitly zero initializes all
unnamed members. Is that explicit enough? ;-)