svn commit: r185356 - head/sys/dev/ixgbe

[Roman Divacky]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:32:04PM -0500, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:19:44 +0000 (UTC)
> Jack F Vogel <jfv at FreeBSD.org> 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?

kernel has been compiling with c99 for a long time now. World is still
c89 but compiles cleanly as c99 as of a few days ago (the zfs update +
the sendmail fix)

I did not test that the world compiles to a correct code using c99 but 
I am going to work on that soon.