From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:04:47 +0100 From: Heiko Carstens Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] 390/qeth: Refactoring for qeth_core_set_online() Message-ID: <20160104140447.GG4179@osiris> References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <5688F13A.70601@users.sourceforge.net> <5688F1D0.3090502@users.sourceforge.net> <20160104113046.GE4179@osiris> <568A6F4A.1000206@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <568A6F4A.1000206@users.sourceforge.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Ursula Braun , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall List-ID: On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:10:34PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> +++ b/drivers/s390/net/qeth_core_main.c > >> @@ -5638,9 +5638,10 @@ static int qeth_core_set_online(struct ccwgroup_device *gdev) > >> { > >> struct qeth_card *card = dev_get_drvdata(&gdev->dev); > >> int rc; > >> - int def_discipline; > >> > >> if (!card->discipline) { > >> + int def_discipline; > >> + > >> if (card->info.type == QETH_CARD_TYPE_IQD) > >> def_discipline = QETH_DISCIPLINE_LAYER3; > > > > Same here: I don't think we want to start with patches like this. > > Thanks for your feedback. > > > > This going to be a never ending story without much benefit. > > Is the source code a bit clearer and safer if it will be expressed > directly that the use of a specific variable is not intended for > a complete function implementation but for the smaller scope > of an if branch? This depends on the function and what the author prefers. In this case the function body is very small so I don't see any benefit at all.