Am 12.12.2015 15:45, schrieb SF Markus Elfring:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 15:04:57 +0100
>
> The variable "acceptor_values" and "proposer_values" were initialized
> by null pointers and immediately assigned values from input parameters
> by separate statements.
> Let us express the desired variable initialisations directly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_parameters.c | 5 +----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_parameters.c b/drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_parameters.c
> index 53e3345..fb6fd34 100644
> --- a/drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_parameters.c
> +++ b/drivers/target/iscsi/iscsi_target_parameters.c
> @@ -921,10 +921,7 @@ static char *iscsi_check_valuelist_for_support(
> char *value)
> {
> char *tmp1, *tmp2;
> - char *acceptor_values = NULL, *proposer_values = NULL;
> -
> - acceptor_values = param->value;
> - proposer_values = value;
> + char *acceptor_values = param->value, *proposer_values = value;
>
I do not thing that this is a good idea,
i find the first version more readable
but you are right the NULL can be removed.
just my 2 cents,
re,
wh
> do {
> if (!proposer_values)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
