[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200419085657.GA26904@SDF.ORG>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 08:56:57 +0000
From: George Spelvin <lkml@....ORG>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: tung.q.nguyen@...tech.com.au, jmaloy@...hat.com,
ying.xue@...driver.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, lkml@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tipc: Remove redundant tsk->published flag
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 03:32:11PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: George Spelvin <lkml@....org>
> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 03:27:35 GMT
>
>> @@ -3847,7 +3839,7 @@ int tipc_sk_dump(struct sock *sk, u16 dqueues, char *buf)
>> size_t sz = (dqueues) ? SK_LMAX : SK_LMIN;
>> struct tipc_sock *tsk;
>> struct publication *p;
>> - bool tsk_connected;
>> + bool tsk_connected, tsk_published;
>>
>
> Please preserve the reverse christmas tree ordering of local variables
> here.
Happy to, but is that actually defined anywhere? "Preserve" implies that
it was present before the patch, and I can't infer a rule which is obeyed
by the pre-patch declarations:
int i = 0;
size_t sz = (dqueues) ? SK_LMAX : SK_LMIN;
struct tipc_sock *tsk;
struct publication *p;
bool tsk_connected;
One option is to sort by the full line length, including initialization:
size_t sz = (dqueues) ? SK_LMAX : SK_LMIN;
struct tipc_sock *tsk;
struct publication *p;
bool tsk_connected;
int i = 0;
The other is to sort by the *declaration* length:
struct tipc_sock *tsk;
struct publication *p;
bool tsk_connected;
size_t sz = (dqueues) ? SK_LMAX : SK_LMIN;
int i = 0;
Looking at the local variable declarations in the rest of the file isn't
producing any clarity.
Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists