On 12/9/2020 2:39 PM, Andrew Boyer wrote:
On Dec 9, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com
<mailto: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 <mailto: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?
On its own this is not a good change, please do the update in the future patch.
