On 11/20/19 12:25 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019, Cole Robinson wrote:
>
>> On 11/19/19 4:31 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>>>
It was mentioned that the pointers in loops like:
for (i = 0; i < ctl->def->nserials; i++)
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019, Cole Robinson wrote:
> On 11/19/19 4:31 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> >
> >> It was mentioned that the pointers in loops like:
> >> for (i = 0; i < ctl->def->nserials; i++)
> >> if (ctl->def->serials[i] ...
> >> will
On 11/19/19 4:31 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>> It was mentioned that the pointers in loops like:
>> for (i = 0; i < ctl->def->nserials; i++)
>> if (ctl->def->serials[i] ...
>> will always be !NULL or we would have a much more serious
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:31 PM Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
> > It was mentioned that the pointers in loops like:
> > for (i = 0; i < ctl->def->nserials; i++)
> > if (ctl->def->serials[i] ...
> > will always be !NULL or we would have a
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> It was mentioned that the pointers in loops like:
> for (i = 0; i < ctl->def->nserials; i++)
> if (ctl->def->serials[i] ...
> will always be !NULL or we would have a much more serious problem.
>
> Simplify the if chains in get_files by
On 11/14/19 6:20 AM, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> It was mentioned that the pointers in loops like:
> for (i = 0; i < ctl->def->nserials; i++)
> if (ctl->def->serials[i] ...
> will always be !NULL or we would have a much more serious problem.
>
> Simplify the if chains in get_files by
It was mentioned that the pointers in loops like:
for (i = 0; i < ctl->def->nserials; i++)
if (ctl->def->serials[i] ...
will always be !NULL or we would have a much more serious problem.
Simplify the if chains in get_files by dropping these checks.
Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt
---
