On Fri, 15 Oct 2021, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> 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.
>
I had another look at this and realize that I am wrong.
bufsize is just a buffer size passed to threadalloc
which does the malloc which gives the two different addresses we
are concerned with. Go ahead and submit this one and I'll sign-off
on it.
Thanks
John
