Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:02:33 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] e1000 C style badness |
| |
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/
| |