Em Fri, 2 Mar 2018 15:46:33 +0100
Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> Re-order variables declaration to respect 'reverse christmas tree'
> ordering whenever possible.
To be frank, I don't like the idea of reverse christmas tree ordering
myself... Perhaps due to the time I used to program on assembler,
where alignment issues could happen, I find a way more logic to order
based on complexity and size of the argument...
>
> Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c | 23 +++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c b/drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c
> index cc648de..3a5e307 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c
> @@ -406,9 +406,9 @@ static void tw9910_reset(struct i2c_client *client)
>
> static int tw9910_power(struct i2c_client *client, int enable)
> {
> - int ret;
> u8 acntl1;
> u8 acntl2;
> + int ret;
... So, in this case, the order is already the right one, according
with my own criteria :-)
There was some discussion about the order sometime ago at LKML:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9411999/
As I'm not seeing the proposed patch there at checkpatch, nor any
comments about xmas tree at coding style, I think that there were no
agreements about the ordering.
So, while there's no consensus about that, let's keep it as-is.
Regards,
Mauro
