From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 07:28:04 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] cris-cryptocop: Move an assignment for the variable "nooutpages" in cryptocop_ioctl_
Message-Id: <02c343e7-a7ac-26d1-4e79-ae50d3ec6dbb@users.sourceforge.net>
List-Id: <kernel-janitors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net>
 <bfc23090-e05d-f491-2a28-1803ceb31a31@users.sourceforge.net>
 <2a70980b-54e3-812c-b76e-6b64640c469c@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1608272107070.3363@hadrien>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1608272107070.3363@hadrien>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@gmail.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@axis.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Mikael Starvik <starvik@axis.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>

>> +++ b/arch/cris/arch-v32/drivers/cryptocop.c
>> @@ -2469,7 +2469,7 @@ static int cryptocop_ioctl_process(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp, unsig
>>  	struct page                     **inpages = NULL;
>>  	struct page                     **outpages = NULL;
>>  	int                             noinpages = 0;
>> -	int                             nooutpages = 0;
>> +	int                             nooutpages;
>>
>>  	struct cryptocop_desc           descs[5]; /* Max 5 descriptors are needed, there are three transforms that
>>  						   * can get connected/disconnected on different places in the indata. */
>> @@ -2695,6 +2695,8 @@ static int cryptocop_ioctl_process(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp, unsig
>>  			err = -ENOMEM;
>>  			goto free_inpages;
>>  		}
>> +	} else {
>> +		nooutpages = 0;
> 
> Why is it better?  4 characters have becomes 2 lines.

I suggest to express in a more precise way where this variable is needed actually.

* It would also be an update candidate for the refactoring "Reduce the scope of a variable", wouldn't it?

* Or would the refactoring "Split the implementation of a function into further functions" more appropriate here?

Regards,
Markus