From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 27 07:08:45 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6DB106564A; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:08:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE2958FC0C; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:08:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mAR76JP8094847; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:06:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:06:21 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20081127.000621.1413927847.imp@bsdimp.com> To: kabaev@gmail.com From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20081126213204.14db9a63@kan.dnsalias.net> References: <200811270219.mAR2Ji2M073024@svn.freebsd.org> <20081126213204.14db9a63@kan.dnsalias.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jfv@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r185356 - head/sys/dev/ixgbe X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:08:45 -0000 In message: <20081126213204.14db9a63@kan.dnsalias.net> Alexander Kabaev writes: : On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:19:44 +0000 (UTC) : Jack F Vogel wrote: : : > Author: jfv : > Date: Thu Nov 27 02:19:44 2008 : > New Revision: 185356 : > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/185356 : > : > Log: : > Small nit I just noticed, a pre-decrement should be post. : > : > Modified: : > head/sys/dev/ixgbe/ixgbe.c : > : > Modified: head/sys/dev/ixgbe/ixgbe.c : > ============================================================================== : > --- head/sys/dev/ixgbe/ixgbe.c Thu Nov 27 02:18:43 2008 : > (r185355) +++ head/sys/dev/ixgbe/ixgbe.c Thu Nov 27 02:19:44 : > 2008 (r185356) @@ -3244,7 +3244,7 @@ fail: : > * the rings that completed, the failing case will have : > * cleaned up for itself. 'j' failed, so its the terminus. : > */ : > - for (int i = 0; i < j; ++i) { : > + for (int i = 0; i < j; i++) { : > rxr = &adapter->rx_rings[i]; : > for (int n = 0; n < adapter->num_rx_desc; n++) { : > struct ixgbe_rx_buf *rxbuf; : : Is C99 construct here intentional? If so, when did we agree on using : only C99 compilers on our code base? I'm not sure about *THIS* c99 construct, but we've been heavily relying on the field name initializer stuff for a couple of years now. eg: static struct cdevsw lpt_cdevsw = { .d_version = D_VERSION, .d_flags = D_NEEDGIANT, .d_open = lptopen, .d_close = lptclose, .d_read = lptread, .d_write = lptwrite, .d_ioctl = lptioctl, .d_name = LPT_NAME, }; Warner