On 22/03/2016 15:59, Alex Bennée wrote: >> > + for (ptb1 = &tcg_ctx.tb_ctx.tb_phys_hash[h]; >> > + (tb = *ptb1) != NULL; >> > + ptb1 = &tb->phys_hash_next) { > I'm not sure I'm keen on the assignment in the for condition clause. I > appreciate the cleansing of the if !tb return exit though. Could we be > cleaner maybe? Here is my attempt:
Sure, that would be just fine. Paolo