Hi Dave, On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Manish Kurup <kurup.man...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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, > I have made the required changes, and sent the review around once more (v10). Please let me know if this looks OK.
Thanks! -Manish
