On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 01:17:45PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
>>+ do {
>>+ objs = list_user_overrides(tmp_ctx, dom);
>
>Would you consider moving definition of objs closer to it's usage?
>
>>+ if (objs == NULL) {
>>+ DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "Unable to get override
>>objects\n");
>>+ ret = ENOMEM;
>>+ goto done;
>>+ }
>>+
>>+ for (i = 0; objs[i].orig_name != NULL; i++) {
>You can move definition of i closer to its usage.
No to both considerations. In general I don't oppose to this coding style
change but I would like to keep the style consistent within modules.
In general I do oppose to this coding style, sorry. I'm fine with:
for (int i...)
But if you really need to declare variables inside a block, then usually
the block needs to be split into its own function.