On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:37:26PM -0700, Bill Spitzak wrote: > On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > + if (elm->next == NULL && elm->prev == NULL) > > + return; > > + > > elm->prev->next = elm->next; > > elm->next->prev = elm->prev; > > elm->next = NULL; > > > > You probably don't need to check both pointers, as the code will crash if > only one of them is NULL.
yeah, that's true but obviousness in code is worth a lot. only checking next or prev will make the casual reviewer wonder why we don't check both, so it'd require a comment or generally more brain-power to review than the bleedingly obvious condition. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
