Alex Dewar wrote:
> The for loop checks whether cur_section is NULL on every iteration, but
> we know it can never be NULL as there is another check towards the
> bottom of the loop body. Refactor to avoid this unnecessary check.
>
> Also, increment the variable i inline for clarity
>
> Address
Alex Dewar writes:
>> I agree. Anyone can come up with a patch?
>
> Hi Kalle,
>
> I was thinking of having a go at this. Have you applied the v2 of this
> patch yet though? I couldn't see it in wireless-drivers-next. I just
> don't want to have to rebase the patch if you were going to apply this
> I agree. Anyone can come up with a patch?
Hi Kalle,
I was thinking of having a go at this. Have you applied the v2 of this
patch yet though? I couldn't see it in wireless-drivers-next. I just
don't want to have to rebase the patch if you were going to apply this
v2.
Best,
Alex
>
> --
> http
Julian Calaby writes:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:09 AM Alex Dewar wrote:
>>
>> The for loop checks whether cur_section is NULL on every iteration, but
>> we know it can never be NULL as there is another check towards the
>> bottom of the loop body. Refactor to avoid this unnecessary check.
>>
>
Hi Alex,
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:09 AM Alex Dewar wrote:
>
> The for loop checks whether cur_section is NULL on every iteration, but
> we know it can never be NULL as there is another check towards the
> bottom of the loop body. Refactor to avoid this unnecessary check.
>
> Also, increment the
The for loop checks whether cur_section is NULL on every iteration, but
we know it can never be NULL as there is another check towards the
bottom of the loop body. Refactor to avoid this unnecessary check.
Also, increment the variable i inline for clarity
Addresses-Coverity: 1496984 ("Null pointe
6 matches
Mail list logo
