Re: kern/55663: Support for EVFILT_USER in kqueue(2)

[Ruslan Nikolaev <nruslan_devel%yahoo.com@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR kern/55663; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Ruslan Nikolaev <nruslan_devel%yahoo.com@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, kern-bug-people%netbsd.org@localhost,
 gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: kern/55663: Support for EVFILT_USER in kqueue(2)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:09:36 -0400

 Martin,
 
 Thanks for your response! Just to confirm what you are saying:
 
 1. Skip changes like you have shown, where f_touch is initialized to 
 NULL, assuming the default value for unspecified fields (= 0).
 
 2. Change structs such as { 1, NULL, filt_apmrdetach, filt_apmread}
 to {
 	.f_isfd = 1,
 	.f_detach = filt_apmrdetach,
 	.f_event = filt_apmread,
 }
 
 Is it correct?
 
 Ruslan
 
 On 9/16/20 3:25 PM, Martin Husemann wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR kern/55663; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
 > Cc:
 > Subject: Re: kern/55663: Support for EVFILT_USER in kqueue(2)
 > Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 21:20:59 +0200
 > 
 >   Style nit:
 >   
 >   @@ -1092,6 +1092,7 @@ static const struct filterops pipe_rfiltops = {
 >           .f_attach = NULL,
 >           .f_detach = filt_pipedetach,
 >           .f_event = filt_piperead,
 >   +       .f_touch = NULL,
 >    };
 >   
 >   
 >   I would suggest to not initialize NULL in such C99 struct initializers
 >   and convert all non-C99 initializers to C99 style instead. That should reduce
 >   the diff dramatically and leave only the important parts.
 >   
 >   Martin
 >   
 >