On 12/4/2020 8:16 PM, Andrew Boyer wrote:
This makes the code clearer and conserves resources.Signed-off-by: Andrew Boyer <abo...@pensando.io> --- drivers/net/ionic/ionic_ethdev.c | 5 ++--- drivers/net/ionic/ionic_lif.c | 15 ++++++++++----- drivers/net/ionic/ionic_main.c | 18 +++++++----------- 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/ionic/ionic_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/ionic/ionic_ethdev.c index ce6ca9671..a1c35ace3 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ionic/ionic_ethdev.c +++ b/drivers/net/ionic/ionic_ethdev.c @@ -901,7 +901,7 @@ ionic_dev_start(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev) struct ionic_lif *lif = IONIC_ETH_DEV_TO_LIF(eth_dev); struct ionic_adapter *adapter = lif->adapter; struct ionic_dev *idev = &adapter->idev; - uint32_t allowed_speeds; + uint32_t speed, allowed_speeds; int err;IONIC_PRINT_CALL();@@ -929,8 +929,7 @@ ionic_dev_start(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev) }if (eth_dev->data->dev_conf.link_speeds & ETH_LINK_SPEED_FIXED) {- uint32_t speed = ionic_parse_link_speeds(dev_conf->link_speeds); - + speed = ionic_parse_link_speeds(dev_conf->link_speeds); if (speed) ionic_dev_cmd_port_speed(idev, speed); }
Same comment from previous version, what is the reason to increase the scope of the 'speed' variable?
Functionality is same and isn't it better to have reduced scope?
