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.
David
