Alex Dewar wrote:
> The for loop checks whether cur_section is NULL on every iteration, but
> we know it can never be NULL as there is another check towards the
> bottom of the loop body. Refactor to avoid this unnecessary check.
>
> Also, increment the variable i inline for clarity
>
> Address
Alex Dewar writes:
>> I agree. Anyone can come up with a patch?
>
> Hi Kalle,
>
> I was thinking of having a go at this. Have you applied the v2 of this
> patch yet though? I couldn't see it in wireless-drivers-next. I just
> don't want to have to rebase the patch if you were going to apply this
> I agree. Anyone can come up with a patch?
Hi Kalle,
I was thinking of having a go at this. Have you applied the v2 of this
patch yet though? I couldn't see it in wireless-drivers-next. I just
don't want to have to rebase the patch if you were going to apply this
v2.
Best,
Alex
>
> --
> http
Julian Calaby writes:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:09 AM Alex Dewar wrote:
>>
>> The for loop checks whether cur_section is NULL on every iteration, but
>> we know it can never be NULL as there is another check towards the
>> bottom of the loop body. Refactor to avoid this unnecessary check.
>>
>
Hi Alex,
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:09 AM Alex Dewar wrote:
>
> The for loop checks whether cur_section is NULL on every iteration, but
> we know it can never be NULL as there is another check towards the
> bottom of the loop body. Refactor to avoid this unnecessary check.
>
> Also, increment the
5 matches
Mail list logo