On 8/1/2017 8:12 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger
>> Sent: 01 August 2017 04:52
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:40:50 -0700
>> Amritha Nambiar <amritha.namb...@intel.com> wrote:
>> The concept is fine, bu t the code looks different than the rest which
>> is never a good sign.
>>
>>
>>> + if ((argc > 0) && (matches(*argv, "tc") == 0)) {
>>
>> Extra () are unnecessary in compound conditional.
>>
>>> + tc = atoi(*argv);
>>
>> Prefer using strtoul since it has better error handling than atoi()
>>
>>> + argc--;
>>> + argv++;
>>> + }
>>
>>
>> Use NEXT_ARG() construct like rest of the code.
>
> Why bother faffing about with argc at all?
> The argument list terminates when *argv == NULL.
>
I'll submit the next version with these fixes.
> David
>
