On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:19:44 +0000 (UTC) Jack F Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? -- Alexander Kabaev
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
