On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 28/06/2017 01:57, Alistair Francis wrote:
>> There is no way nhandles can be zero in this section so that part of the
>> if statement will always be false. Let's just remove it to make the code
>> easier to read.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com>
>> Acked-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com>
>> ---
>>
>> util/oslib-win32.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/util/oslib-win32.c b/util/oslib-win32.c
>> index 80e4668935..7ec0f8e083 100644
>> --- a/util/oslib-win32.c
>> +++ b/util/oslib-win32.c
>> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ static int poll_rest(gboolean poll_msgs, HANDLE
>> *handles, gint nhandles,
>> /* If we have a timeout, or no handles to poll, be satisfied
>> * with just noticing we have messages waiting.
>> */
>> - if (timeout != 0 || nhandles == 0) {
>> + if (timeout != 0) {
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>>
>
> Hmm, I think it's possible, poll_msgs is true here.
poll_msgs?
If nhandles is 0 then we have already entered an earlier if statement
and set ready to either WAIT_FAILED or WAIT_TIMEOUT in which case we
can't enter this part of the if statement.
Thanks,
Alistair
>
> Paolo
