Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103682-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Sagi Maimon <maimon.sagi@gmail.com>
Cc: richardcochran@gmail.com, luto@kernel.org, datglx@linutronix.de,
 mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
 x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de, geert@linux-m68k.org,
 peterz@infradead.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, sohil.mehta@intel.com,
 rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, nphamcs@gmail.com, palmer@sifive.com,
 keescook@chromium.org, legion@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
 mszeredi@redhat.com, casey@schaufler-ca.com, reibax@gmail.com,
 davem@davemloft.net, brauner@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
 netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] posix-timers: add clock_compare system call
In-Reply-To: <CAMuE1bHOm2Y1bOpggStMOjZhN5TaxoC1gJea5Mdrc+mormQg0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240314090540.14091-1-maimon.sagi@gmail.com>
 <87a5n1m5j1.ffs@tglx>
 <CAMuE1bHOm2Y1bOpggStMOjZhN5TaxoC1gJea5Mdrc+mormQg0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:42:51 +0100
Message-ID: <87y1aklkno.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 14 2024 at 17:46, Sagi Maimon wrote:

Can you please trim your replies? I really have better things to do than
doing detective work to find 10 new lines within 200+ irrelevant ones.

> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:12=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.=
de> wrote:
>> Please read and follow the documentation provided at:
>>
>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html
>>
> I have missed this part on prviews reply.
> I have read the documentation above and I think that the variable
> declarations at the beginning of a function is in reverse fir tree
> order meaning from big to small, but I guess that I am missing something,
> can you please explain what is wrong with the variable declaration,
> so I can fix it.

>> > +     struct timespec64 ts_a, ts_a1, ts_b, ts_a2;
>> > +     struct system_device_crosststamp xtstamp_a1, xtstamp_a2, xtstamp=
_b;
>> > +     const struct k_clock *kc_a, *kc_b;
>> > +     ktime_t ktime_a;
>> > +     s64 ts_offs_err =3D 0;
>> > +     int error =3D 0;
>> > +     bool crosstime_support_a =3D false;
>> > +     bool crosstime_support_b =3D false;

It's not about the data type. Look at the three layouts and figure out
which one is better to parse.