RE: [PATCH] Removed unnecessary void* from hashmap.h that caused compile warnings

On January 15, 2018 3:43 PM, Thomas Gummerer wrote:

Thanks for your patch!  A few nitpicks below:

quoted

Subject: [PATCH] Removed unnecessary void* from hashmap.h that caused
compile warnings

From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:

    Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
    instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
    to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
    its behavior.

I liked the subject Philip suggested in the other thread: "hashmap.h:
remove unnecessary void*", or maybe "hashmap.h: remove unnecessary
variable".

On 01/14, randall.s.becker@rogers.com wrote:

quoted

From: "Randall S. Becker" <redacted>

* hashmap.h: Revised the while loop in the

hashmap_enable_item_counting

quoted

	to remove unneeded void* item.

As above, this should be described in an imperative mood, and describe why
this is a good change and should be merged.  Maybe something along the
lines of the below?

    In 'hashmap_enable_item_counting()', item is assigned but never
    used.  This causes a warning on HP NonStop.  As the variable is
    never used, fix this by just removing it.

quoted

Signed-off-by: Randall S. Becker <redacted>
---
 hashmap.h | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hashmap.h b/hashmap.h
index 7ce79f3..d375d9c 100644
--- a/hashmap.h
+++ b/hashmap.h

@@ -400,7 +400,6 @@ static inline void

hashmap_disable_item_counting(struct hashmap *map)

quoted

  */
 static inline void hashmap_enable_item_counting(struct hashmap *map)
{
-	void *item;
 	unsigned int n = 0;
 	struct hashmap_iter iter;

@@ -408,7 +407,7 @@ static inline void

hashmap_enable_item_counting(struct hashmap *map)

quoted

 		return;

 	hashmap_iter_init(map, &iter);
-	while ((item = hashmap_iter_next(&iter)))
+	while (hashmap_iter_next(&iter))
 		n++;

 	map->do_count_items = 1;

I like it. Do you need this resubmitted? Or should I just learn for next
time?

Cheers,
Randall