>> @@ -323,14 +323,14 @@ static void tx_device_task(void *dev)
>> {
>> struct ks_wlan_private *priv = (struct ks_wlan_private *)dev;
>> struct tx_device_buffer *sp;
>> - int rc = 0;
>>
>> DPRINTK(4, "\n");
>> if (cnt_txqbody(priv) > 0
>> && atomic_read(&priv->psstatus.status) != PS_SNOOZE) {
>> sp = &priv->tx_dev.tx_dev_buff[priv->tx_dev.qhead];
>> if (priv->dev_state >= DEVICE_STATE_BOOT) {
>> - rc = write_to_device(priv, sp->sendp, sp->size);
>> + int rc = write_to_device(priv, sp->sendp, sp->size);
>
> This does not look appealing to me, neither the declaration in the middle
> of the function, nor the intiialization to the result of a complex
> expression, nor the separation of the call and the error checking code by
> a blank line. There is nothing wrong with having the rc variable be
> declared at the the top of the function, in its normal place.
* Do you occasionally care for a refactoring like "Reduce scope of variable"?
http://refactoring.com/catalog/reduceScopeOfVariable.html
* How do you think about to remove the extra assignment at the beginning
of this function implementation?
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
