netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/9] net: phy: add backplane kr driver support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <385ff77269e5df76c917d494de012a8f83fea31e.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:42:11 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     florinel.iordache@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, kuba@...nel.org,
        corbet@....net, shawnguo@...nel.org, leoyang.li@....com,
        madalin.bucur@....nxp.com, ioana.ciornei@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/9] net: phy: add backplane kr driver support

On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 12:07 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:55:17 -0700
> 
> > On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 11:53 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Florinel Iordache <florinel.iordache@....com>
> >> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:51:19 +0200
> >> 
> >> > +static void kr_reset_master_lane(struct kr_lane_info *krln)
> >> > +{
> >> > +     struct phy_device *bpphy = krln->bpphy;
> >> > +     struct backplane_phy_info *bp_phy = bpphy->priv;
> >> > +     const struct lane_io_ops *lane_ops = krln->bp_phy->bp_dev.lane_ops;
> >> 
> >> Please use reverse christmas tree ordering for local variables.
> > 
> > How (any why) do you suggest the first 2 entries here
> > should be ordered?
> 
> You have to sometimes put assignments into the code body rather than
> the declarations in situations like this.

No "why" reply given.

An option is not using reverse christmas tree to both
avoid ordering
constraints and reduce overall line count.

I think this is your own personal taste rather than an
actual valuable addition for subsystem maintenance.

And if this a serious requirement for the subsystem
you oversee, you should add it to something like a
maintainer-entry-profile with a "P:" line in MAINTAINERS.

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.html