Re: Clarifying confusion of our variable placement rules caused by cleanup.h

Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.ksummit,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Organization Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Tue, 18 Nov 2025, James Bottomley <[email protected]> wrote:
> For myself I do find some value in the C89 declarations at the
> beginning of the block for readability, so I'm happy to relax the
> mixing rule to cases where it's strictly necessary and require
> documenting in the comment what the necessity is.

I think I've seen an increase in patches using non-pointer const local
variables. No metrics, just a gut feeling.

	const int foo = bar + 5;

I haven't really decided whether I like that or not, and subsequently I
have neither encouraged or discouraged that usage. I don't think we have
any style guidance on that either.

Anyway, more const usage like that would also benefit from declaration
and initialization at a later point when the initializer value is
available, if it's not at the beginning.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.