On 29/10/24 12:39, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:18:56 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
I don't think you want to change this. `lsettings` is based on `ksettings`. So,
`ksettings` should go first. The same scenario for the one below.
In which case you need to move the init out of line.
So, the same applies to the case below?
const struct ethtool_link_settings_hdr *base = &lk_ksettings->base;
struct bnxt *bp = netdev_priv(dev);
struct bnxt_link_info *link_info = &bp->link_info;
Do you mean the bp and bp->link_info lines?
You're not touching them, so leave them be.
Is this going to be a priority for any other netdev patches in the future?
It's been the preferred formatting for a decade or more.
Which is why the net/ethtool/ code you're touching follows
this convention. We're less strict about driver code.
I mean, the thing about moving the initialization out of line to accommodate
for the convention.
What I'm understanding is that now you're asking me to change the following
const struct linkmodes_reply_data *data = LINKMODES_REPDATA(reply_base);
const struct ethtool_link_ksettings *ksettings = &data->ksettings;
- const struct ethtool_link_settings *lsettings = &ksettings->base;
+ const struct ethtool_link_settings_hdr *lsettings = &ksettings->base;
to this:
const struct linkmodes_reply_data *data = LINKMODES_REPDATA(reply_base);
const struct ethtool_link_settings_hdr *lsettings;
const struct ethtool_link_ksettings *ksettings;
ksettings = &data->ksettings;
lsettings = &ksettings->base;
I just want to have clear if this is going to be a priority and in which
scenarios
should I/others modify the code to accommodate for the convention?
--
Gustavo
