lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7] posix-timers: add clock_compare system call
Date
On Thu, Mar 14 2024 at 17:46, Sagi Maimon wrote:

Can you please trim your replies? I really have better things to do than
doing detective work to find 10 new lines within 200+ irrelevant ones.

> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:12 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> Please read and follow the documentation provided at:
>>
>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html
>>
> I have missed this part on prviews reply.
> I have read the documentation above and I think that the variable
> declarations at the beginning of a function is in reverse fir tree
> order meaning from big to small, but I guess that I am missing something,
> can you please explain what is wrong with the variable declaration,
> so I can fix it.

>> > + struct timespec64 ts_a, ts_a1, ts_b, ts_a2;
>> > + struct system_device_crosststamp xtstamp_a1, xtstamp_a2, xtstamp_b;
>> > + const struct k_clock *kc_a, *kc_b;
>> > + ktime_t ktime_a;
>> > + s64 ts_offs_err = 0;
>> > + int error = 0;
>> > + bool crosstime_support_a = false;
>> > + bool crosstime_support_b = false;

It's not about the data type. Look at the three layouts and figure out
which one is better to parse.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 15:50    [W:0.056 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site