On 7/28/21 2:14 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 10:59:22AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:

quoted

quoted

  drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c |  5 +--
  include/uapi/linux/omap3isp.h             | 44 +++++++++++++++++------
  2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c
index 5b9b57f4d9bf..ea8222fed38e 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c

@@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ int omap3isp_stat_request_statistics(struct ispstat *stat,
  int omap3isp_stat_request_statistics_time32(struct ispstat *stat,
  					struct omap3isp_stat_data_time32 *data)
  {
-	struct omap3isp_stat_data data64;
+	struct omap3isp_stat_data data64 = { };

Should this be { 0 } ?

We've seen patches trying to switch from { 0 } to {  } but the answer
was that { 0 } is supposed to be used,
http://www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/random/initialise.html

(from https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fbddb15a-6e46-3f21-23ba-b18f66e3448a@suse.com/ (local))

In the kernel we don't care about portability so much.  Use the = { }
GCC extension.  If the first member of the struct is a pointer then
Sparse will complain about = { 0 }.

+1 for { }. BTW, my understanding is that neither the C standard nor the 
C++ standard guarantee anything about initialization of padding bytes 
nor about the initialization of unnamed bitfields for stack variables 
when using aggregate initialization.

Bart.