Re: [PATCH] i2c: piix4: Avoid race conditions with IMC

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > > +       unsigned short piix4_smba = adapdata->smba;
>> > >         u8 smba_en_lo;
>> > >         u8 port;
>> > >         int retval;
>> > > +       int timeout = 0;
>> > > +       int smbslvcnt;
>> >
>> > Keep them just after your another added variable.
>>
>> FWIW, I don't think this makes sense as a general rule. I'd rather have
>> the variables in an order which makes sense (for human readers or for
>> stack size optimization - unless gcc does it for us?), rather than
>> always adding at the same place. Is there a rationale for doing that? I
>> don't think shrinking the patch size is good enough a reason.
>
> Not really. Some say "Reorder to save bytes", some say "reorder to
> utilize cache lines most". Unless I get some numbers showing the desired
> effect,

> I go for "most readable" approach which is subjective, of
> course. I'd be totally fine with the above.

My motivation was pure readability.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko