From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] 390/qeth: Refactoring for qeth_core_set_online() References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <5688F13A.70601@users.sourceforge.net> <5688F1D0.3090502@users.sourceforge.net> <20160104113046.GE4179@osiris> From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: <568A6F4A.1000206@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:10:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160104113046.GE4179@osiris> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Heiko Carstens Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Ursula Braun , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall List-ID: >> +++ 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? Regards, Markus