John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>
>> From: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Two copies of "bufsize", initialised with the same value are declared
>> in enclosed blocks. Remove the redundant declaration.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c b/src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c
>> index 721d242a1da0..9c67a3ce3034 100644
>> --- a/src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c
>> +++ b/src/cyclictest/cyclictest.c
>> @@ -2054,7 +2054,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> memset(stat->values, 0, bufsize);
>> par->bufmsk = VALBUF_SIZE - 1;
>> if (smi) {
>> - int bufsize = VALBUF_SIZE * sizeof(long);
>> stat->smis = threadalloc(bufsize, node);
>> if (!stat->smis)
>> goto outall;
>> --
>> 2.32.0
>>
>>
> NACK: two different scopes, two different variables.
If they had different values or if the inner scope was not dependent
(nested) I would agree.
But no strong opinion - I'll drop this one.
