The function doesn't need to pass anything back via this pointer, it's
the last consumer of this struct. Make understanding the code a bit easier
and clear the road for further simplifications by passing the struct as
value instead of pointer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Make the code flow a bit easier to understand and allow further simplification
by now just having to write out one additional payload as one block.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Putting both payload pieces into one buffer, so it can be written out
with only one call.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's hard to see which fields of the xkbGetDeviceInfoReply struct it's
reading or writing, and that complicates further simplifications of the
caller. So instead let the caller pass in the relevant fields and do the
modifications on the reply structs on its own.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
A bit simplification in code flow.
The extra length check (did we write as much as intended?) isn't necessary,
since the buffer size is computed by the very same data before this
function is called.
Hint: the size computation must be done before calling this one, because
the reply might be encapsulated in another one (xkbGetKbdByName).
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's not passing back any data via that pointer and actually the last
consumer of it. Changing it to value instead of pointer clears the
road for further simplifications by subsequent patches.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Make it a bit simpler and easier to read.
calloc() and WriteToClient() can handle zero lengths very well.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's not passing back any data via that pointer and actually the last
consumer of it. Changing it to value instead of pointer clears the
road for further simplifications by subsequent patches.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
It's not passing back any data via that pointer and actually the last
consumer of it. Changing it to value instead of pointer clears the
road for further simplifications by subsequent patches.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
We don't need the whole struct here, especially do we not wanna change it.
Therefore only pass in what's really needed, so it gets easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Use static initializaton as much as possible and drop unnecessary
or duplicate zero assignments.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
This macro isn't used anywhere (also not in drivers), so no need
to keep it around any longer.
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
Only key difference that calloc(), in contrast to rellocarray(),
is zero-initializing. The overhead is hard to measure on today's
machines, and it's safer programming practise to always allocate
zero-initialized, so one can't forget to do it explicitly.
Cocci rule:
@@
expression COUNT;
expression LEN;
@@
- xallocarray(COUNT,LEN)
+ calloc(COUNT,LEN)
Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
