| Message ID | 1481194859-23695-1-git-send-email-n.chaprana@samsung.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:30:59PM +0530, Nishant Chaprana wrote: > continue statement at bottom of for loop is not required, > so removed continue statement from bottom of for loop. While the continue statement here does not really make any difference, I'm not sure removing it is the correct fix or cleanup here. > diff --git a/src/pae/ieee802_1x_kay.c b/src/pae/ieee802_1x_kay.c > @@ -1094,7 +1094,6 @@ ieee802_1x_mka_decode_potential_peer_body( > if (peer_mn > participant->mn && > !reset_participant_mi(participant)) > wpa_printf(MSG_DEBUG, "KaY: Could not update mi"); > - continue; > } > } Should that instead break the loop on finding a match (the "it is myself" check just before this context)? Or is this continue here to maintain consistent style with other similar functions that actually continue processing like ieee802_1x_mka_decode_live_peer_body()? Unless there is better understanding and more justification for removing the "unnecessary" continue statement, I think I'd rather leave it here to remain consistent with the other functions and to be more future proof if something get added to the end of this loop.
diff --git a/src/pae/ieee802_1x_kay.c b/src/pae/ieee802_1x_kay.c index 1d6d9a9..650fe21 100644 --- a/src/pae/ieee802_1x_kay.c +++ b/src/pae/ieee802_1x_kay.c @@ -1094,7 +1094,6 @@ ieee802_1x_mka_decode_potential_peer_body( if (peer_mn > participant->mn && !reset_participant_mi(participant)) wpa_printf(MSG_DEBUG, "KaY: Could not update mi"); - continue; } }
continue statement at bottom of for loop is not required, so removed continue statement from bottom of for loop. Signed-off-by: Nishant Chaprana <n.chaprana@samsung.com> --- src/pae/ieee802_1x_kay.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)