DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=soCD4WYBf5AjoeMHuIg9mtn1Y07bQLeT+R5GUKlNfXem6tlL6lhWNMU4/ZE/QybgQP7nP6yRG3CzWtWarU6JJR5aU3fvlEL2TrZLLtNmXQEQi/nxnxYKMTQGuXXV50cr2uykeIA4UoUPjGAxeFtbdCTgcpMZwjwFgUNJJmRuhcQ=
Message-ID: <43CE26CC.2020905@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:30:20 +0100
From: Patrizio Bassi <patrizio.bassi@gmail.com>
Reply-To: patrizio.bassi@gmail.com
Organization: patrizio.bassi@gmail.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060112)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
CC: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000 C style badness
References: <5wgyi-18w-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <43CE02BD.8060309@gmail.com> <43CE0429.3090708@yahoo.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <43CE0429.3090708@yahoo.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1947
Lines: 56

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/