On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Ingo Molnar [off-list ref] wrote:

* Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+int put_compat_rusage_time64(const struct __kernel_rusage *r,
+                          struct compat_rusage_time64 __user *ru)
+{
+     struct compat_rusage_time64 r32;
+     memset(&r32, 0, sizeof(r32));
+     r32.ru_utime.tv_sec = r->ru_utime.tv_sec;
+     r32.ru_utime.tv_usec = r->ru_utime.tv_usec;
+     r32.ru_stime.tv_sec = r->ru_stime.tv_sec;
+     r32.ru_stime.tv_usec = r->ru_stime.tv_usec;
+     r32.ru_maxrss = r->ru_maxrss;
+     r32.ru_ixrss = r->ru_ixrss;
+     r32.ru_idrss = r->ru_idrss;
+     r32.ru_isrss = r->ru_isrss;
+     r32.ru_minflt = r->ru_minflt;
+     r32.ru_majflt = r->ru_majflt;
+     r32.ru_nswap = r->ru_nswap;
+     r32.ru_inblock = r->ru_inblock;
+     r32.ru_oublock = r->ru_oublock;
+     r32.ru_msgsnd = r->ru_msgsnd;
+     r32.ru_msgrcv = r->ru_msgrcv;
+     r32.ru_nsignals = r->ru_nsignals;
+     r32.ru_nvcsw = r->ru_nvcsw;
+     r32.ru_nivcsw = r->ru_nivcsw;

Could you please vertically align the right side of the initialization as well?
Much easier to check at a glance.

...

Which tabulated form made me notice the info.cause / si_code asymmetry - and a
brief check of the source shows that it's correct. No way would I have noticed it
in the jumbled up form above, so I think aligning such mass-initializations makes
sense.

Sure, no problem. Do you have an opinion on the question I raised in the
first patch [1], i.e. whether we actually want this to be done this way in the
kernel, or one of the other approaches I described there?

Thanks for taking a look here already!

      Arnd

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10352507/