On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 03.06.2013 01:23, schrieb Felipe Contreras: > >> I didn't say we should do 'if (ce) free(ce);' instead of 'free(ce);' I >> said we should do 'if (cd && ce != o->df_conflict_entry)' instead of >> 'if (ce != o->df_conflict_entry)'. > > > I did assume you meant the latter. > > >> There's no reason not to. > > > Only the minor ones already mentioned: More text, Five characters. > one more branch in object > code, Which might actually be more optimal. > no benefit except for some hypothetical future case that's caught by > the test suite anyway -- or by code review. That's not the benefit, the benefit is that the code is clearer. > I wonder if we already reached the point where we spent more time discussing > this change than the time needed by the envisioned developer to find and fix > the NULL check that suddenly became necessary. :) Maybe, but if what you want is to avoid the discussion, you could just add the extra five characters and be done with it. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html