[PATCH libinput 1/5] util: allow list_remove() on a NULL node

[Ping Cheng]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:37:26PM -0700, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Peter Hutterer <
> peter.hutterer at who-t.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > +       if (elm->next == NULL && elm->prev == NULL)
> > > +               return;
> > > +
> > >         elm->prev->next = elm->next;
> > >         elm->next->prev = elm->prev;
> > >         elm->next = NULL;
> > >
> >
> >  You probably don't need to check both pointers, as the code will crash
> if
> > only one of them is NULL.
>
> yeah, that's true but obviousness in code is worth a lot. only checking
> next
> or prev will make the casual reviewer wonder why we don't check both, so
> it'd require a comment or generally more brain-power to review than the
> bleedingly obvious condition.


I guess Bill meant "||" should be used instead of "&&"? One of the == NULL
would lead to a crash...

Cheers,

Ping
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20150629/f5ea932d/attachment.html>