On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:00:21AM -0400, Damien Riegel wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:00:37PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > Also, overall the cleanup looks good, but the resulting > > mx_open_message() flow is a little overcomplicated. What about > > something like: > > Agreed, you're version is a bit easier to read. A few notes inlined:
Your notes are all fine. I wasn't intending to micro-manage how you write your patches, but just didn't like the interleaved flow between the ops check and the return value check of ops->open_msg(). I think simply delaying the safe_calloc until after the ops check untangles it enough. As long as the resulting code is clear and readable (and follows our general coding style), feel free to follow your preferences. > Thanks for your feedback. Let me know if you want me to send another > version of this patch which restores the perror and dprint, and change > mx_open_message. Yes, please send another patch when you have time. I will try to go through your other patch sets this week. Thank you. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
