On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:15, Brent Cook wrote:
>
> Would this more appropriately-scoped patch be OK?
Looks reasonable to me.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 05:44:20PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 09:02:50AM -0600, Brent Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 05:45:17PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 15:45, Brent Cook wrote:
> > > > From: Brent Cook
> > > >
> > > > Yeah yeah, a
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 09:02:50AM -0600, Brent Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 05:45:17PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 15:45, Brent Cook wrote:
> > > From: Brent Cook
> > >
> > > Yeah yeah, a pointer is a pointer (except when it isn't :). I think this
> > > looks n
> - if ((p->query = calloc(1, sizeof(struct ntp_query))) == NULL)
> + if ((p->query = calloc(1, sizeof(*(p->query == NULL)
I do not think the replacement pattern is better in any way.
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 05:45:17PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 15:45, Brent Cook wrote:
> > From: Brent Cook
> >
> > Yeah yeah, a pointer is a pointer (except when it isn't :). I think this
> > looks nicer, since idx2peer is really the thing we're allocating to.
>
> what
