Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:56:51 +0200
From: Dawid Kurek <dawikur@gmail.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Reduce scope of 'state' variable
Message-ID: <20170615165651.GA695@gmail.com>
References: <20170615104142.GA29276@gmail.com>
 <871sqlzewc.fsf@intel.com>
 <20170615142430.GA13398@gmail.com>
 <87vanxxp5h.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87vanxxp5h.fsf@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 941
Lines: 24

On 15/06/17, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Dawid Kurek <dawikur@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15/06/17, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> Separate declaration and initialization would lead to a cleaner patch
> >> and result.
> >
> > I saw combining declaration and initialization is quite common, i.e. in
> > drm_atomic file. Personally, I also prefer those in one statement. But yes, it
> > looks cleaner here, in two lines.
> 
> I'd say the rule of thumb is that combined declaration and
> initialization is fine if the initialization is trivial, in particular
> can never fail. If you need to check the return value, like in this
> case, I'd prefer separate initialization.
> 
Yeah, makes sense. If you need to check then it exceeds simple initialization,
and then it is not declare&initialize. Yes, now I see it.

Thanks a lot,
Dawid

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus