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

Reply via email to