On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:25:05AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > The code looks mostly fine, but I'm not a fan of this factoring where we > deref ->l_covered_state here and return a value only for the caller to > assign it to ->l_covered_state again. Can we just let this function > assign ->l_covered_state itself (i.e. assign a local variable rather than > return within the switch)? I did that earlier, but this version looked easier to understand to me. I can change it if there is a strong preference.
