From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dawid Kurek Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Reduce scope of 'state' variable Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:56:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20170615165651.GA695@gmail.com> References: <20170615104142.GA29276@gmail.com> <871sqlzewc.fsf@intel.com> <20170615142430.GA13398@gmail.com> <87vanxxp5h.fsf@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Return-path: Received: from mail-lf0-x22c.google.com (mail-lf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3628D6E734 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:57:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id o83so12739993lff.3 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 09:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87vanxxp5h.fsf@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" To: Jani Nikula Cc: Daniel Vetter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org T24gMTUvMDYvMTcsIEphbmkgTmlrdWxhIHdyb3RlOgo+IE9uIFRodSwgMTUgSnVuIDIwMTcsIERh d2lkIEt1cmVrIDxkYXdpa3VyQGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6Cj4gPiBPbiAxNS8wNi8xNywgSmFu aSBOaWt1bGEgd3JvdGU6Cj4gPj4gU2VwYXJhdGUgZGVjbGFyYXRpb24gYW5kIGluaXRpYWxpemF0 aW9uIHdvdWxkIGxlYWQgdG8gYSBjbGVhbmVyIHBhdGNoCj4gPj4gYW5kIHJlc3VsdC4KPiA+Cj4g PiBJIHNhdyBjb21iaW5pbmcgZGVjbGFyYXRpb24gYW5kIGluaXRpYWxpemF0aW9uIGlzIHF1aXRl IGNvbW1vbiwgaS5lLiBpbgo+ID4gZHJtX2F0b21pYyBmaWxlLiBQZXJzb25hbGx5LCBJIGFsc28g cHJlZmVyIHRob3NlIGluIG9uZSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQuIEJ1dCB5ZXMsIGl0Cj4gPiBsb29rcyBjbGVh bmVyIGhlcmUsIGluIHR3byBsaW5lcy4KPiAKPiBJJ2Qgc2F5IHRoZSBydWxlIG9mIHRodW1iIGlz IHRoYXQgY29tYmluZWQgZGVjbGFyYXRpb24gYW5kCj4gaW5pdGlhbGl6YXRpb24gaXMgZmluZSBp ZiB0aGUgaW5pdGlhbGl6YXRpb24gaXMgdHJpdmlhbCwgaW4gcGFydGljdWxhcgo+IGNhbiBuZXZl ciBmYWlsLiBJZiB5b3UgbmVlZCB0byBjaGVjayB0aGUgcmV0dXJuIHZhbHVlLCBsaWtlIGluIHRo aXMKPiBjYXNlLCBJJ2QgcHJlZmVyIHNlcGFyYXRlIGluaXRpYWxpemF0aW9uLgo+IApZZWFoLCBt YWtlcyBzZW5zZS4gSWYgeW91IG5lZWQgdG8gY2hlY2sgdGhlbiBpdCBleGNlZWRzIHNpbXBsZSBp bml0aWFsaXphdGlvbiwKYW5kIHRoZW4gaXQgaXMgbm90IGRlY2xhcmUmaW5pdGlhbGl6ZS4gWWVz LCBub3cgSSBzZWUgaXQuCgpUaGFua3MgYSBsb3QsCkRhd2lkCgotLS0KVGhpcyBlbWFpbCBoYXMg YmVlbiBjaGVja2VkIGZvciB2aXJ1c2VzIGJ5IEF2YXN0IGFudGl2aXJ1cyBzb2Z0d2FyZS4KaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cuYXZhc3QuY29tL2FudGl2aXJ1cwoKX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KZHJpLWRldmVsIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApkcmktZGV2ZWxAbGlz dHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnCmh0dHBzOi8vbGlzdHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnL21haWxtYW4v bGlzdGluZm8vZHJpLWRldmVsCg== From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752099AbdFOQ5B (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:57:01 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]:34496 "EHLO mail-lf0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751956AbdFOQ5A (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:57:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:56:51 +0200 From: Dawid Kurek To: Jani Nikula Cc: Daniel Vetter , Sean Paul , David Airlie , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Reduce scope of 'state' variable Message-ID: <20170615165651.GA695@gmail.com> References: <20170615104142.GA29276@gmail.com> <871sqlzewc.fsf@intel.com> <20170615142430.GA13398@gmail.com> <87vanxxp5h.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87vanxxp5h.fsf@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 170615-0, 15/06/2017), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 15/06/17, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Dawid Kurek wrote: > > On 15/06/17, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> Separate declaration and initialization would lead to a cleaner patch > >> and result. > > > > I saw combining declaration and initialization is quite common, i.e. in > > drm_atomic file. Personally, I also prefer those in one statement. But yes, it > > looks cleaner here, in two lines. > > I'd say the rule of thumb is that combined declaration and > initialization is fine if the initialization is trivial, in particular > can never fail. If you need to check the return value, like in this > case, I'd prefer separate initialization. > Yeah, makes sense. If you need to check then it exceeds simple initialization, and then it is not declare&initialize. Yes, now I see it. Thanks a lot, Dawid --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus