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;
Message-ID: <e07845c0348f389756b76e34b4728a95aa48038a.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: prefer = {} initializations to = {0}
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
        cocci <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>
Cc:     Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 05 Aug 2021 11:04:15 -0700
In-Reply-To: <117021b44dc9ba570a0f48736d14a267a8701d0a.camel@perches.com>
References: <20210805104353.GD26417@kili>
         <117021b44dc9ba570a0f48736d14a267a8701d0a.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.0-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2021-08-05 at 05:27 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-08-05 at 13:43 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The "= {};" style empty struct initializer is preferred over = {0}.
> > It avoids the situation where the first struct member is a pointer and
> > that generates a Sparse warning about assigning using zero instead of
> > NULL.  Also it's just nicer to look at.

Perhaps a cocci script like the below could help too:

$ cat zero_init_struct.cocci
@@
identifier name;
identifier t;
@@

	struct name t = {
-	       0
	};

@@
identifier name;
identifier t;
identifier member;
@@

	struct name t = {
	       ...,
		.member = {
-		0
		},
		...,
	};