On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 04/05/2014 02:44 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> The outer if already checks for data != 0, so it can't really be
>> 0. Hence remove it.
>>
>> Now I don't have specs or anything for this beast, so I have no
>> idea whether this was actually inte
On 04/05/2014 02:44 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The outer if already checks for data != 0, so it can't really be
> 0. Hence remove it.
>
> Now I don't have specs or anything for this beast, so I have no
> idea whether this was actually intended or whether the logic
> should be different. At least t
The outer if already checks for data != 0, so it can't really be
0. Hence remove it.
Now I don't have specs or anything for this beast, so I have no
idea whether this was actually intended or whether the logic
should be different. At least the code still seems to be doing
something useful.
Spotte
