Re: [PATCH] e1000 C style badness

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Patrizio Bassi wrote:
> Jens Axboe ha scritto:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Recent e1000 updates introduced variable declarations after code. Fix
> > those up again.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c b/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > index d0a5d16..ca68a04 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c
> > @@ -2142,9 +2142,11 @@ e1000_leave_82542_rst(struct e1000_adapt
> > 		e1000_pci_set_mwi(&adapter->hw);
> >
> > 	if(netif_running(netdev)) {
> > +		struct e1000_rx_ring *ring;
> > +
> > 		e1000_configure_rx(adapter);
> > 		/* No need to loop, because 82542 supports only 1 queue */
> > -		struct e1000_rx_ring *ring = &adapter->rx_ring[0];
> > +		ring = &adapter->rx_ring[0];
> > 		adapter->alloc_rx_buf(adapter, ring, E1000_DESC_UNUSED(ring));
> > 	}
> > }
> > @@ -3583,8 +3585,8 @@ e1000_clean_rx_irq(struct e1000_adapter 
> > 	rx_desc = E1000_RX_DESC(*rx_ring, i);
> >
> > 	while(rx_desc->status & E1000_RXD_STAT_DD) {
> > -		buffer_info = &rx_ring->buffer_info[i];
> > 		u8 status;
> > +		buffer_info = &rx_ring->buffer_info[i];
> > #ifdef CONFIG_E1000_NAPI
> > 		if(*work_done >= work_to_do)
> > 			break;
>
>
> Shouldn't variables declaration be on top of function and not on top of
> a block (like if, while, for...)?

Any block is OK, and they all have the same nice symmetry - variables
come into scope at the top and go out of scope at the bottom.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/