Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] powerpc: Prepare func_desc_t for refactorisation

From: Segher Boessenkool <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 01:39:19 -0600

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 04:54:52PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 02:38:17PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
(edited:)
> > +typedef struct {
> > +	unsigned long addr;
> > +} func_desc_t;
> >  
> >  static func_desc_t func_desc(unsigned long addr)
> >  {
> > +	return (func_desc_t){addr};

> There's only 1 element in the struct, so okay, but it hurt my eyes a
> little. I would have been happier with:
> 
> 	return (func_desc_t){ .addr = addr; };
> 
> But of course that also looks bonkers because it starts with "return".
> So no matter what I do my eyes bug out. ;)

The usual way to avoid convoluted constructs is to name more factors.
So:

static func_desc_t func_desc(unsigned long addr)
{
	func_desc_t desc = {};
	desc.addr = addr;
	return desc;
}

Segher