On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutte...@who-t.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:37:26PM -0700, Bill Spitzak wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Peter Hutterer < > peter.hutte...@who-t.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > + if (elm->next == NULL && elm->prev == NULL) > > > + return; > > > + > > > elm->prev->next = elm->next; > > > elm->next->prev = elm->prev; > > > elm->next = NULL; > > > > > > > You probably don't need to check both pointers, as the code will crash > if > > only one of them is NULL. > > yeah, that's true but obviousness in code is worth a lot. only checking > next > or prev will make the casual reviewer wonder why we don't check both, so > it'd require a comment or generally more brain-power to review than the > bleedingly obvious condition. I guess Bill meant "||" should be used instead of "&&"? One of the == NULL would lead to a crash... Cheers, Ping
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
