Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:30:20 +0100 | From | Patrizio Bassi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] e1000 C style badness |
| |
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 <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. > 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 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/
| |