On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 05:03:28PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 13:52 -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 19:12 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > > follow these guidelines:
> > > - leave initialization in the declaration block if it fits the line
> > > - move to the code where it's more suitable ('for' init block)
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > Looks good.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
>
> I retract this. The last chunk in the patch is erroneous.
>
> Below is the original proposed patch, except I have
> modified the last chunk to be a correct fix for what
> appears to be a duplicate initialization. (It was not,
> really, but I've changed it so only one assignment is
> made, and the result makes it more obvious what's
> going on.)
>
> David, perhaps you could sign off on this version.
> Meanwhile, another reviewer might make sense.
Seeing as you only added a hunk, I'd say that keeping his old
sÑgnoff is just fine.
>
> -Alex
>
> follow these guidelines:
> - leave initialization in the declaration block if it fits the line
> - move to the code where it's more suitable ('for' init block)
>
> Originally proposed by David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx>
That is what the "From:" tag is for when you post someone else's
patch. ;)
Anyway, looks good now.
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
