# Re: Coding Style: Reverse XMAS tree declarations ?

- From: David Miller \<davem@davemloft.net\>
- Date: 2016-11-04 15:08:10 
- List: linuxppc-dev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2016/11/4867986
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2016/11/4866844/t.md

```text
From: Lino Sanfilippo <redacted>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:01:17 +0100

> Hi,
> 
> On 04.11.2016 07:53, Joe Perches wrote:
>>
>> CHECK:REVERSE_XMAS_TREE: Prefer ordering declarations longest to
>> shortest
>> #446: FILE: drivers/net/ethernet/ethoc.c:446:
>> +			int size = bd.stat >> 16;
>> +			struct sk_buff *skb;
>>
> 
> should not this case be valid? Optically the longer line is already
> before the shorter.
> I think that the whole point in using this reverse xmas tree ordering
> is to have
> the code optically tidied up and not to enforce ordering between
> variable name lengths.

That's correct.
```