In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: 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?
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
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
