Attention is currently required from: arehbein. neels has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-upf/+/30461 ) Change subject: tunmap: choose local GTP addr by Network Instance IEs ...................................................................... Patch Set 2: (2 comments) File src/osmo-upf/up_session.c: https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-upf/+/30461/comment/1fae73dc_3bb0db2c PS2, Line 124: struct osmo_sockaddr osa = {}; yeah we've had some discussions on that before. struct foo f = {}; initializes all members to zero. It was then brought to my attention that the "normal" way to do this is: struct foo = {0}; I find this syntax odd, because 0 is assigned to the first member of a struct, and the rest of the members get an implicit zero because they are not present. that works fine with a struct like this: struct foo { int first; int second; }; but when the struct has "nested" members the {0} syntax looks incorrrect: struct foo { int arr[23]; }; struct foo f = {0}; the correct way to initialize the arr member would be struct foo f = { {0, 1, 2} }; or struct foo f = { {0} }; Now, in many cases, just f = {0} magically works. I'm not sure whether that is special-cased by the compiler or what. So then I started to adopt the "{0}" syntax. But *then*, a while passed and i did encounter a case where i could not initialize a struct with "{0}". i don't remember in detail, but it was a nested struct, maybe like struct foo { struct { struct baz memb; } bar; }; So I hit a case where "{0}" doesn't compile, but "{}" works without problems. Long story short, i have now gone back to using and prefering "{}", because it simply makes more sense to me, and all compilers we encounter in osmocom seem to be fine with that. BTW I also often use a syntax like f = (struct foo){}; which is a memset(0). or f = (struct foo){ .bar = { .baz = { 1, "alpha" }, }, }; to zero-initialize the struct and place select values at the same time, avoiding a lot of repetition. I've gotten some frowns from code review, but so far this syntax has always worked as expected. File tests/netinst.vty: https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-upf/+/30461/comment/236b7fe7_326ad830 PS2, Line 32: <cr> this trailing whitespace is returned from the telnet VTY, if we fix that the test will fail. so need to keep that. -- To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-upf/+/30461 To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings Gerrit-Project: osmo-upf Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I15ee046a1c37b83b8a83527a67a6215a30106d81 Gerrit-Change-Number: 30461 Gerrit-PatchSet: 2 Gerrit-Owner: neels &lt;nhofmeyr(a)sysmocom.de&gt; Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder Gerrit-Reviewer: arehbein &lt;arehbein(a)sysmocom.de&gt; Gerrit-Reviewer: laforge &lt;laforge(a)osmocom.org&gt; Gerrit-Attention: arehbein &lt;arehbein(a)sysmocom.de&gt; Gerrit-Comment-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 17:11:07 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Comment-In-Reply-To: arehbein &lt;arehbein(a)sysmocom.de&gt; Gerrit-MessageType: comment