On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 7:25 PM Jeff Johnson
<jeff.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 7/18/2025 6:47 AM, Nithyanantham Paramasivam wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 7:01 PM Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Nithyanantham Paramasivam <nithyanantham.paramasivam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:45 PM Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> @@ -578,6 +579,8 @@ ath12k_dp_tx_htt_tx_complete_buf(struct ath12k_base *ab,
> >>>>> struct ath12k *ar;
> >>>>> struct sk_buff *msdu = desc_params->skb;
> >>>>> s32 noise_floor;
> >>>>> + struct ieee80211_tx_status status = { 0 };
> >>>>
> >>>> With '= {}', no matter how the struct changes, you don't need to change the
> >>>> code accordingly.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Both ={} and = {0} achieve the same result, right?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> However, in some cases, it might cause compiler error. But I forgot the cases,
> >> even I can't reproduce the error now. Sorry for the noise.
> >>
> > No worries at all. If you happen to recall the scenario later, I’d be
> > curious to know. For now, since we have been following the same style,
> > we'll continue with it.
> >
>
> {} is preferable to { 0 } since the 2nd one causes a compilation failure if
> the first member of the struct is not a scalar
Thanks for the clarification! I’ll follow the same approach going
forward. I’ll make the change and update the code accordingly.
