On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 7:23 PM Jakub Kicinski
<jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 19:16:45 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 7:00 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 15:56:04 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > > index 43fdbbfe41bb..27da96a797ab 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > > @@ -1092,9 +1092,7 @@ static int do_run(int argc, char **argv)
> > > > static int load_with_options(int argc, char **argv, bool first_prog_only)
> > > > {
> > > > struct bpf_object_load_attr load_attr = { 0 };
> > > > - struct bpf_object_open_attr open_attr = {
> > > > - .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC,
> > > > - };
> > > > + enum bpf_prog_type common_prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC;
> > > > enum bpf_attach_type expected_attach_type;
> > > > struct map_replace *map_replace = NULL;
> > > > struct bpf_program *prog = NULL, *pos;
> > >
> > > Please maintain reverse xmas tree..
> >
> > There are exceptions. I don't think it's worth doing everywhere.
>
> Rule #0 stick to the existing code style.
>
> "Previous line of code declaring this variable in a different way was
> in this place" is a really weak argument and the only one which can be
> made here...
do you seriously think that arguing about xmas tree is a good
spend of yours and my time?!
