Hi Dave, On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:07 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > > From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.du...@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 08:54:20 -0800 > > > Are we really going to be so strict about the reverse xmas-tree that > > we won't allow for assignment w/ variable declaration because the > > dependency order won't fit into that format? > > Yes. > > > Last I knew this kind of setup was an exception to the reverse > > xmas-tree layout requirement because in this case 'p' relies on 'v' so > > we can't reorder these without having to kick the assignment of 'p' > > off onto a line by itself. > > Please just declare the variable naked without the assignment and do > the assignment down in the code.
I have a changeset that I had made to incorporate the reverse xmas tree, doing the very thing you talk about, above. The only reason I didnt not send it out because it made more than minimal changes, especially how the 'opt' struct is defined. I will make the changes and send the review around once more. Thanks,
