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.