Nick Piggin ha scritto:
> 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 <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
ok, i'm still linked to the 70' C style (not confortable) :)
old compilers failed with such syntax.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
