On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 6:39 AM Santosh Sivaraj <sant...@fossix.org> wrote: > > Hi Ira, > > Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com> writes: > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 07:27:25PM +0800, Wan Jiabing wrote: > >> struct device is declared at 133rd line. > >> The declaration here is unnecessary. Remove it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Wan Jiabing <wanjiab...@vivo.com> > >> --- > >> include/linux/libnvdimm.h | 1 - > >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/include/linux/libnvdimm.h b/include/linux/libnvdimm.h > >> index 01f251b6e36c..89b69e645ac7 100644 > >> --- a/include/linux/libnvdimm.h > >> +++ b/include/linux/libnvdimm.h > >> @@ -141,7 +141,6 @@ static inline void __iomem *devm_nvdimm_ioremap(struct > >> device *dev, > >> > >> struct nvdimm_bus; > >> struct module; > >> -struct device; > >> struct nd_blk_region; > > > > What is the coding style preference for pre-declarations like this? Should > > they be placed at the top of the file? > > > > The patch is reasonable but if the intent is to declare right before use for > > clarity, both devm_nvdimm_memremap() and nd_blk_region_desc() use struct > > device. So perhaps this duplicate is on purpose? > > There are other struct device usage much later in the file, which doesn't have > any pre-declarations for struct device. So I assume this might not be on > purpose :-)
Yeah, I believe it was just code movement and the duplicate was inadvertently introduced. Patch looks ok to me. > > On a side note, types.h can also be removed, since it's already included in > kernel.h. That I don't necessarily agree with, it just makes future header reworks more fraught for not much benefit. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-le...@lists.01.org
