On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:14:56PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:

quoted

This just seemed more readable to me than min_not_zero, but if others
prefer min_not_zero I can switch.

Nah, just checking whether there were any intentionally different 
assumptions compared to the couple of other places in the patch where 
min_not_zero() *is* used. If it's purely a style thing then no worries 
(personally I'd have written it yet another way anyway).

I'm curious: how would you have written it?