Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030202AbWARI6L (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:58:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030204AbWARI6L (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:58:11 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:40000 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030202AbWARI6K (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:58:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:00:14 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Patrizio Bassi Cc: "Kernel, " Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000 C style badness Message-ID: <20060118090014.GE4222@suse.de> References: <5wgyi-18w-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <43CE02BD.8060309@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43CE02BD.8060309@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1722 Lines: 52 On Wed, Jan 18 2006, 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 > > > > 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...)? No, that's not necessary. But they should be before actual code inside that block. -- Jens Axboe - 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/