Hi Tomasz,
On 03/08/2013 09:09 AM, Tomasz Bursztyka wrote:
Le 07/03/2013 16:45, Daniel Wagner a écrit :
On 03/07/2013 03:33 PM, Patrik Flykt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 14:35 +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
Currently, find_chain_tail() returns the element after the chain end.
Let's keep it the old way until there is a real reason to do something
else. If it ain't broken, let's not fix it (yet).
This function is broken. So I fix it. And I disagree with you reasoning.
I don't see a fix here, and afaik this function would be broken not much
code from iptables.c would work, wouldn't it? ;)
You are just changing the signature of find_chain_tail() and if you want
to do so, you should do the same for find_chain_head()
But from semantic point of view: tail and head are words tighten to
list. tail of the list, head of the list. Here you change the stuff then.
Hmm, I had in the impression that the current code does violate this
definition. find_chain_tail() returns the element after the chain we are
looking at.
And personally I don't see the code much readable before or after.
uuhh, how is
if (chain_head->next != chain_tail->prev)
more readable then
if (chain_head->next != chain_tail)
?
But then, I think we are entering the bike shedding discussion. Okay, I
drop this one.
cheers,
daniel
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
