From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3FFC19F2D for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 20:00:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1344707AbiHIUAA (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2022 16:00:00 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54164 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1345622AbiHIT7i (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2022 15:59:38 -0400 Received: from out2.migadu.com (out2.migadu.com [188.165.223.204]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 712F925285 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 12:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 19:59:26 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1660075169; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=sM5Dxj/DZYe6RsHiIz0HU39XEN9xQpMq/eMg+Z/EJxg=; b=U5LPb1fqQLk75DyiGkfhvbz3klE8UT+2xQknuMOqXXk08G6OWjEMyysCWoM0yU9aMgUv6H 4qO+NxUxuEfsU2tCDtzE57oraBxpXqqLOVvVNt8kErszSexjQeT7X1ireQVv3qyZ+xoefJ fHL1YZY054BihN6QDHEtlgnGz3WqQ/E= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Oliver Upton To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Sean Christopherson , kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] KVM: Hoist debugfs_dentry init to kvm_create_vm_debugfs() (again) Message-ID: References: <20220720092259.3491733-1-oliver.upton@linux.dev> <20220720092259.3491733-7-oliver.upton@linux.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Migadu-Auth-User: linux.dev Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:56:28PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 8/5/22 21:02, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Heh, so this amusingly has my review, but I'd rather omit this patch and leave > > the initialization with the pile of other code that initializes fields for which > > zero-initialization is insufficient/incorrect. > > > > Any objections to dropping this? > > Yeah, I was going to say the same. The points before and after this patch > are far enough that I'm a bit more confident leaving it out. Sounds reasonable to me. To be fair, I mostly threw this patch at the end to poke fun at the original mistake :) -- Thanks, Oliver