Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] posix-timers: add clock_compare system call

From: Thomas Gleixner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:42:51 +0100

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 <[email-masked]> 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.