Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> + if (!opts->ll_callback) {
>> + optbug(opts, "OPTION_LOWLEVEL_CALLBACK needs a callback");
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + if (opts->callback) {
>> + optbug(opts, "OPTION_LOWLEVEL_CALLBACK needs no high level callback");
>> + break;
>> + }
>> break;
>
> A minor point, but I'm not sure I understand why we're adding breaks for
> the two cases above. In the OPTION_CALLBACK case, the if conditions are
> mutually exclusive and are followed by an unconditional break, so adding
> additional breaks seems unnecessary.
Yeah, good thinking.
> For the OPTION_LOWLEVEL_CALLBACK
> case, the conditions are not mutually exclusive, but isn't this exactly
> the issue that optbug() is intended to address? I.e., wouldn't the
> caller want to see both optbug()s if both are relevant?
Exactly.
Thanks for a careful reading.
