From: Lino Sanfilippo
> Sent: 04 November 2016 20:07
...
> In this case it is IMHO rather the declaration + initialization that makes
> "bar" hard to find at one glance, not the use of RXT. You could do something
> like
>
> [longish list of reverse xmas tree identifiers...]
> struct
Joe Perches writes:
> On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 15:58 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Madalin Bucur
>> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 22:17:26 +0200
>>
>> > This introduces the Freescale Data Path Acceleration Architecture
>> > +static inline size_t
On 04.11.2016 18:44, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 11:07 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Lino Sanfilippo
>> > On 04.11.2016 07:53, Joe Perches wrote:
>> >> CHECK:REVERSE_XMAS_TREE: Prefer ordering declarations longest to
>> >> shortest
>> >> #446: FILE:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:05:15AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 11/03/16 23:53, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 15:58 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Madalin Bucur
> >> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 22:17:26 +0200
> >>
> >>> This introduces the Freescale Data
On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 11:07 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Lino Sanfilippo
> > On 04.11.2016 07:53, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> CHECK:REVERSE_XMAS_TREE: Prefer ordering declarations longest to
> >> shortest
> >> #446: FILE: drivers/net/ethernet/ethoc.c:446:
> >> +
On 11/03/16 23:53, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 15:58 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Madalin Bucur
>> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 22:17:26 +0200
>>
>>> This introduces the Freescale Data Path Acceleration Architecture
>>> +static inline size_t
From: Lino Sanfilippo
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:01:17 +0100
> Hi,
>
> On 04.11.2016 07:53, Joe Perches wrote:
>>
>> CHECK:REVERSE_XMAS_TREE: Prefer ordering declarations longest to
>> shortest
>> #446: FILE: drivers/net/ethernet/ethoc.c:446:
>> +int size
Hi,
On 04.11.2016 07:53, Joe Perches wrote:
CHECK:REVERSE_XMAS_TREE: Prefer ordering declarations longest to shortest
#446: FILE: drivers/net/ethernet/ethoc.c:446:
+ int size = bd.stat >> 16;
+ struct sk_buff *skb;
should not this case be valid?