Re: [PATCH] amdgpu/gmc : fix compile warning

From: "Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
Cc: "Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
	"Zhou, David(ChunMing)" <David1.Zhou@amd.com>,
	"airlied@linux.ie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
	"amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] amdgpu/gmc : fix compile warning
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 08:14:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <022e41c0-8465-dc7a-a45c-64187ecd9684@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181004185237.GA20667@roeck-us.net>

Am 04.10.2018 um 20:52 schrieb Guenter Roeck:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 06:05:52PM +0800, Peng Hao wrote:
>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c:
>>      In function ‘gmc_v8_0_process_interrupt’:
>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c:1447:10:
>>      warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
> Was there any feedback on this patch ? The problem does affect us,
> and we'll need a fix.

Well as discussed using "{ { 0 } }" is as wrong as using "{ 0 }".

We should either use only "{ }" or even better make nails with heads and 
use memset().

Christian.

>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c | 2 +-
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c | 2 +-
>>   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c
>> index 9333109..55f4755 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v8_0.c
>> @@ -1444,7 +1444,7 @@ static int gmc_v8_0_process_interrupt(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>   		gmc_v8_0_set_fault_enable_default(adev, false);
>>   
>>   	if (printk_ratelimit()) {
>> -		struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { 0 };
>> +		struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { {0} };
>>   
> I wondered if
> 		struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { };
> would be better.
>
> Thanks,
> Guenter
>
>>   		amdgpu_vm_get_task_info(adev, entry->pasid, &task_info);
>>   
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c
>> index 72f8018..e8b78c5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c
>> @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static int gmc_v9_0_process_interrupt(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	if (printk_ratelimit()) {
>> -		struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { 0 };
>> +		struct amdgpu_task_info task_info = { {0} };
>>   
>>   		amdgpu_vm_get_task_info(adev, entry->pasid, &task_info);
>>   