> On Dec 9, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
In a future patch I will be redesigning this code block and speed will have
function scope.
I have tried to break things up into digestible bits. Is this not acceptable?
-Andrew
