On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, René Scharfe
<rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx> wrote:
> Am 03.06.2013 01:23, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>> I didn't say we should do 'if (ce) free(ce);' instead of 'free(ce);' I
>> said we should do 'if (cd && ce != o->df_conflict_entry)' instead of
>> 'if (ce != o->df_conflict_entry)'.
> I did assume you meant the latter.
>> There's no reason not to.
> Only the minor ones already mentioned: More text,

Five characters.

> one more branch in object
> code,

Which might actually be more optimal.

> no benefit except for some hypothetical future case that's caught by
> the test suite anyway -- or by code review.

That's not the benefit, the benefit is that the code is clearer.

> I wonder if we already reached the point where we spent more time discussing
> this change than the time needed by the envisioned developer to find and fix
> the NULL check that suddenly became necessary. :)

Maybe, but if what you want is to avoid the discussion, you could just
add the extra five characters and be done with it.

Felipe Contreras
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to