[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230321122742.7bd1165f@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 12:27:42 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...well.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] smsc911x: remove superfluous variable init
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 15:38:31 +0100 Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > struct smsc911x_data *pdata = netdev_priv(dev);
> > > - struct phy_device *phydev = NULL;
> > > + struct phy_device *phydev;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > phydev = phy_find_first(pdata->mii_bus);
> >
> > Nit: perhaps combine this assignment with the variable declaration?
>
> I thought about it but found this version to be easier readable.
+1
Calling functions which need their return value error-checked as part
of the variable declaration should be against the kernel coding style
IMHO.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists